On 10/12/20 11:53 AM, Muchun Song wrote: > We are not complaining about TCP using too much memory, but how do > we know that TCP uses a lot of memory. When I firstly face this problem, > I do not know who uses the 25GB memory and it is not shown in the /proc/meminfo. > If we can know the amount memory of the socket buffer via /proc/meminfo, we > may not need to spend a lot of time troubleshooting this problem. Not everyone > knows that a lot of memory may be used here. But I believe many people > should know /proc/meminfo to confirm memory users. Adding yet another operations in networking fast path is a high cost to pay just to add one extra line in /proc/meminfo, while /proc/net/sockstat is already a good proxy, with per protocol details, instead of a single bucket. I reiterate that zero copy would make this counter out of sync, unless special support is added (adding yet another operations ?) Also your patch does not address gazillions of page allocations from drivers in RX path. Here at Google the majority of networking mm usage when hosts are under stress is in RX path, when out of order queues start to grow in TCP sockets. Allocations in TX path were greatly reduced and optimally sized with the introduction of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_notsent_lowat. We have gazillions of put_page()/__free_page()/__free_pages()/alloc_page()/... all over the places, adding yet another tracking of "this page is used by networking stacks" is going to be quite a big project. I thought memcg was a better goal in the long run, lets focus on it.
