[Sorry for the late reply] On Tue 31-10-17 11:12:38, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 31-10-17 00:39:58, Yang Shi wrote: [...] > > I do agree it is not fair and not neat to account to producer rather than > > misbehaving consumer, but current memcg design looks not support such use > > case. And, the other question is do we know who is the listener if it > > doesn't read the events? > > So you never know who will read from the notification file descriptor but > you can simply account that to the process that created the notification > group and that is IMO the right process to account to. Yes, if the creator is de-facto owner which defines the lifetime of those objects then this should be a target of the charge. > I agree that current SLAB memcg accounting does not allow to account to a > different memcg than the one of the running process. However I *think* it > should be possible to add such interface. Michal? We do have memcg_kmem_charge_memcg but that would require some plumbing to hook it into the specific allocation path. I suspect it uses kmalloc, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
