On 03/01/2012 03:05 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:24:11 -0300
Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/29/2012 09:10 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:09:50 -0800
Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:58:47 -0800
Suleiman Souhlal<ssouhlal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is used to indicate that we don't want an allocation to be accounted
to the current cgroup.
Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx>
I don't like this.
Please add
___GFP_ACCOUNT "account this allocation to memcg"
Or make this as slab's flag if this work is for slab allocation.
We would like to account for all the slab allocations that happen in
process context.
Manually marking every single allocation or kmem_cache with a GFP flag
really doesn't seem like the right thing to do..
Can you explain why you don't like this flag?
For example, tcp buffer limiting has another logic for buffer size controling.
_AND_, most of kernel pages are not reclaimable at all.
I think you should start from reclaimable caches as dcache, icache etc.
If you want to use this wider, you can discuss
+ #define GFP_KERNEL (.....| ___GFP_ACCOUNT)
in future. I'd like to see small start because memory allocation failure
is always terrible and make the system unstable. Even if you notify
"Ah, kernel memory allocation failed because of memory.limit? and
many unreclaimable memory usage. Please tweak the limitation or kill tasks!!"
The user can't do anything because he can't create any new task because of OOM.
The system will be being unstable until an admin, who is not under any limit,
tweaks something or reboot the system.
Please do small start until you provide Eco-System to avoid a case that
the admin cannot login and what he can do was only reboot.
Having the root cgroup to be always unlimited should already take care
of the most extreme cases, right?
If an admin can login into root cgroup ;)
Anyway, if someone have a container under cgroup via hosting service,
he can do noting if oom killer cannot recover his container. It can be
caused by kernel memory limit. And I'm not sure he can do shutdown because
he can't login.
To be fair, I think this may be unavoidable. Even if we are only dealing
with reclaimable slabs, having reclaimable slabs doesn't mean they are
always reclaimable. Unlike user memory, that we can swap at will (unless
mlock'd, but that is a different issue), we can have so many objects
locked, that reclaim is effectively impossible. And with the right
pattern, that may not even need to be that many: all one needs to do, is
figure out a way to pin one object per slab page, and that's it: you'll
never get rid of them.
So although obviously being nice making sure we did everything we could
to recover from oom scenarios, once we start tracking kernel memory,
this may not be possible. So the whole point for me, is guaranteeing
that one container cannot destroy the others - which is the reality if
one of them can go an grab all kmem =p
That said, I gave this an extra thought. GFP flags are in theory
targeted at a single allocation. So I think this is wrong. We either
track or not a cache, not an allocation. Once we decided that a cache
should be tracked, it should be tracked and end of story.
So how about using a SLAB flag instead?
--
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>