On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:04 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:12 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:48 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think in the current code if the association is skipped at
> > > allocation time then the sock will remain unassociated for its
> > > lifetime.
> > >
> > > Maybe we can add the association in the later stages but it seems like
> > > it is not a simple task i.e. edbe69ef2c90f ("Revert "defer call to
> > > mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()"").
> >
> > Half TCP sockets are passive, so this means that 50% of TCP sockets
> > won't be charged.
> > (the socket cloning always happens from BH context)
> >
> > I think this deserves a comment in the changelog or documentation,
> > otherwise some people might think
> > using memcg will make them safe.
>
> Thanks I will update the changelog. Also is inet_csk_accept() the
> right place for delayed cgroup/memcg binding (if we decide to do
> that). I am wondering if we can force charge the memcg during late
> binding to cater the issue fixed in edbe69ef2c90f.
>
Yes, this is exactly why accept() would be the natural choice.
You do not want to test/change the binding at sendmsg()/recvmsg() time, right ?
