On 04/24/2012 05:25 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
I think memcg is not necessarily wrong. That is because threads in a process
share an address space, and you will eventually need to map a page to deliver
it to userspace. The mm struct points you to the owner of that.
But that is not necessarily true for things that live in the kernel address
space.
Do you view this differently ?
Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that
process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's
no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different
memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs. This is
consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread
mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well.
But that's the problem.
When we are dealing with kernel memory, we are allocating a whole slab
page. It is essentially impossible to track, given a page, which task
allocated which object.
--
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>