Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] memcg: Kernel memory accounting infrastructure.
From: Glauber Costa <hidden>
Date: 2012-03-12 12:40:01
Also in:
cgroups, lkml
On 03/10/2012 12:39 AM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM +int +memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, long long delta) +{ + struct res_counter *fail_res; + struct mem_cgroup *_memcg; + int may_oom, ret; + + may_oom = (gfp& __GFP_WAIT)&& (gfp& __GFP_FS)&& + !(gfp& __GFP_NORETRY); + + ret = 0; + + _memcg = memcg; + if (memcg&& !mem_cgroup_test_flag(memcg, + MEMCG_INDEPENDENT_KMEM_LIMIT)) { + ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, delta / PAGE_SIZE, + &_memcg, may_oom); + if (ret == -ENOMEM) + return ret; + } + + if (memcg&& _memcg == memcg) + ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->kmem, delta,&fail_res); + + return ret; +} + +void
Ok. So I've spent most of the day today trying to come up with a way not to kill the whole performance we gain from consume_stock() by this res_counter_charge() to kmem afterwards... You mentioned you want to still be able to bill to memcg->kmem mostly for debugging/display purposes. So we're surely not using all of the res_counter infrastructure (limiting, soft limits, etc) I was thinking: Can't we have a percpu_counter that we use for this purpose when !kmem_independent ? we may not even need to bloat the struct, since we can fold it into a union with struct res_counter kmem (which is bigger than a percpu counter anyway). We just need to be a bit more careful not to allow kmem_independent to change when we already have charges to any of them (but we need to do it anyway) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. 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@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>