#endif
-
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
+int do_kmem_account __read_mostly = 1;
+#else
+#define do_kmem_account 0
+#endif
Hmm, do we really need this boot option ?
From my experience to have swap-accounting boot option,
this scares us ;) I think config is enough.
If no one else wants it, I can remove it. I personally
don't need it, just wanted to follow the convention laid down by swap here.
/*
* Statistics for memory cgroup.
*/
@@ -270,6 +274,10 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
*/
struct res_counter memsw;
/*
+ * the counter to account for kmem usage.
+ */
+ struct res_counter kmem;
+ /*
* Per cgroup active and inactive list, similar to the
* per zone LRU lists.
*/
@@ -321,6 +329,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
*/
unsigned long move_charge_at_immigrate;
/*
+ * Should kernel memory limits be stabilished independently
+ * from user memory ?
+ */
+ int kmem_independent;
+ /*
* percpu counter.
*/
struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat;
@@ -388,9 +401,14 @@ enum charge_type {
};
/* for encoding cft->private value on file */
-#define _MEM (0)
-#define _MEMSWAP (1)
-#define _OOM_TYPE (2)
+
+enum mem_type {
+ _MEM = 0,
+ _MEMSWAP,
+ _OOM_TYPE,
+ _KMEM,
+};
+
ok, nice clean up.
#define MEMFILE_PRIVATE(x, val) (((x)<< 16) | (val))
#define MEMFILE_TYPE(val) (((val)>> 16)& 0xffff)
#define MEMFILE_ATTR(val) ((val)& 0xffff)
@@ -3943,10 +3961,15 @@ static inline u64 mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *mem, bool swap)
u64 val;
if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) {
+ val = 0;
+ if (!mem->kmem_independent)
+ val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, RES_USAGE);
if (!swap)
- return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
+ val += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
else
- return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
+ val += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
+
+ return val;
}
val = mem_cgroup_recursive_stat(mem, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE);
@@ -3979,6 +4002,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
else
val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name);
break;
+ case _KMEM:
+ val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name);
+ break;
+
default:
BUG();
break;
@@ -4756,6 +4783,21 @@ static int mem_cgroup_reset_vmscan_stat(struct cgroup *cgrp,
return 0;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
+static u64 kmem_limit_independent_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
+{
+ return mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont)->kmem_independent;
+}
+
+static int kmem_limit_independent_write(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
+ u64 val)
+{
+ cgroup_lock();
+ mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont)->kmem_independent = !!val;
+ cgroup_unlock();
Hm. This code allows that parent/child can have different settings.
Could you add parent-child check as..
"If parent sets use_hierarchy==1, children must have the same kmem_independent value
with parant's one."
Agree.
How do you think ? I think a hierarchy must have the same config.
Yes, I think this is reasonable.
BTW...I don't like naming a little ;)
memory->consolidated/shared/?????_kmem_accounting ?
Or
memory->kmem_independent_accounting ?
or some better naming ?
I can go with kmem_independent_accounting if you like, it is fine
by me.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>