2017-11-20 20:04 GMT+08:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. > Agree with you. Introduce tmpfs stat in memory cgroup, something like memory.tmpfs.limit memory.tmpfs.usage IMHO this is the best solution. Thanks Yafang -- 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>
