On Tue 14-11-17 03:10:22, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On 11/9/17 5:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [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? > > Yes. > > I took a look at the implementation and the callsites of > memcg_kmem_charge_memcg(). It looks it is called by: > > * charge kmem to memcg, but it is charged to the allocator's memcg > * allocate new slab page, charge to memcg_params.memcg > > I think this is the plumbing you mentioned, right? Maybe I have misunderstood, but you are using slab allocator. So you would need to force it to use a different charging context than current. I haven't checked deeply but this doesn't look trivial to me. -- 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>
