On Fri 17-11-17 09:49:54, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > Of couse that is the best way. > > But we can not ensue all applications will do it. > > That's why I introduce a proper defalut value for them. > > > > I think we disagree on the how to get proper default value. Unless you > can restrict that all the memory allocated for a tmpfs mount will be > charged to a specific memcg, you should not just pick limit of the > memcg of the process mounting the tmpfs to set the default of tmpfs > mount. If you can restrict tmpfs charging to a specific memcg then the > limit of that memcg should be used to set the default of the tmpfs > mount. However this feature is not present in the upstream kernel at > the moment (We have this feature in our local kernel and I am planning > to upstream that). I think the whole problem is that containers pretend to be independent while they share a non-reclaimable resource. Fix this and you will not have a problem. I am afraid that the only real fix is to make tmpfs private per container instance and that is something you can easily achieve in the userspace. -- 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>
