# Re: \[PATCH v3 2/7\] socket: initial cgroup code.

- From: Glauber Costa \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-09-26 22:48:05 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/09/3767601
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/09/3764760/t.md

```text
On 09/26/2011 07:52 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:45:04 -0300
> Glauber Costa[ref]  wrote:
>
>> On 09/22/2011 12:09 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Greg Thelen[ref]   wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Glauber Costa[ref]   wrote:
>>>>> Right now I am working under the assumption that tasks are long lived inside
>>>>> the cgroup. Migration potentially introduces some nasty locking problems in
>>>>> the mem_schedule path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, unless I am missing something, the memcg already has the policy of
>>>>> not carrying charges around, probably because of this very same complexity.
>>>>>
>>>>> True that at least it won't EBUSY you... But I think this is at least a way
>>>>> to guarantee that the cgroup under our nose won't disappear in the middle of
>>>>> our allocations.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the memcg user page behavior using the same pattern:
>>>>
>>>> 1. user page P is allocate by task T in memcg M1
>>>> 2. T is moved to memcg M2.  The P charge is left behind still charged
>>>> to M1 if memory.move_charge_at_immigrate=0; or the charge is moved to
>>>> M2 if memory.move_charge_at_immigrate=1.
>>>> 3. rmdir M1 will try to reclaim P (if P was left in M1).  If unable to
>>>> reclaim, then P is recharged to parent(M1).
>>>>
>>>
>>> We also have some magic in page_referenced() to remove pages
>>> referenced from different containers. What we do is try not to
>>> penalize a cgroup if another cgroup is referencing this page and the
>>> page under consideration is being reclaimed from the cgroup that
>>> touched it.
>>>
>>> Balbir Singh
>> Do you guys see it as a showstopper for this series to be merged, or can
>> we just TODO it ?
>>
>
> In my experience, 'I can't rmdir cgroup.' is always an important/difficult
> problem. The users cannot know where the accouting is leaking other than
> kmem.usage_in_bytes or memory.usage_in_bytes. and can't fix the issue.
>
> please add EXPERIMENTAL to Kconfig until this is fixed.

I am working on something here that may allow it.
But I think it is independent of the rest, and I can repost the series fixing the problems raised here without it, + EXPERIMENTAL.

Btw, using EXPERIMENTAL here is a very good idea. I think that we should
turn EXPERIMENTAL on even if I fix for that exists, for a least a couple
of months until we see how this thing really evolves.

What do you think?

>> I can push a proposal for it, but it would be done in a separate patch
>> anyway. Also, we may be in better conditions to fix this when the slab
>> part is merged - since it will likely have the same problems...
>>
>
> Yes. considering sockets which can be shared between tasks(cgroups)
> you'll finally need
>    - owner task of socket
>    - account moving callback
>
> Or disallow task moving once accounted.

I personally think disallowing task movement once accounted is reasonable. At least for starters.

I think I can add at least that to the next proposal. Famous last words is, it should not be that hard...

--
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>
```