Hello, Glauber.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:54:11AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

I don't. Much has been said in the past about the problem of sharing. A
lot of the kernel objects are shared by nature, this is pretty much
unavoidable. The answer we have been giving to this inquiry, is that the
workloads (us) interested in kmem accounted tend to be quite local in
their file accesses (and other kernel objects as well).

It should be obvious that not all workloads are like this, and some of
them would actually prefer to have their umem limited only.

There is nothing unreasonable in tracking user memory only.

If we have a global switch for "tracking all kernel memory", who would
you account the objects that are heavily shared to? I solve this by not
tracking kernel memory for cgroups in such workloads. What do you propose?

One of the things wrong with that is that it exposes the limitation of
the current implementation as interface to userland, which is never a
good idea.  In addition, how is userland supposed to know which
workload is shared kmem heavy or not?  Details like that are not even
inherent to workloads.  It's highly dependent on kernel implementation
which may change any day.  If we hit workloads like that the right
thing to do is improving kmemcg so that such problems don't occur, not
exposing another switch.

If we can't make that work in reasonable (doesn't have to be perfect)
way, we might as well just give up on kmem controller.  If userland
has to second-guess kernel implementation details to make use of it,
it's useless.

quoted

Well, that's really playing with words.  Limit is per cgroup and
before the limit is set for the first time, everything is accounted to
something else.  How is that keeping track?

Even after the limit is set, it is set only by workloads that want kmem
to be tracked. If you want to track it during the whole lifetime of the
cgroup, you switch it before you put tasks to it. What is so crazy about it?

The fact that the numbers don't really mean what they apparently
should mean.

quoted

The proposed behavior seems really crazy to me.  Do people really
think this is a good idea?

It is really sad that you lost the opportunity to say that in a room
full of mm developers that could add to this discussion in real time,
when after an explanation about this was given, Mel asked if anyone
would have any objections to this.

Sure, conferences are useful for building consensus but that's the
extent of it.  Sorry that I didn't realize the implications then but
conferences don't really add any finality to decisions.

So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of
use_hierarchy fiasco.  I'm gonna NACK on this.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun