Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup
From: Daniel Sedlak <hidden>
Date: 2025-10-15 13:57:39
Also in:
cgroups, linux-mm
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2025-10-15 · Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup · Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
- 2025-10-14 · Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup · Daniel Sedlak <hidden>
- 2025-10-14 · Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup · Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
- 2025-10-09 · Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup · Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
- 2025-10-09 · Re: [PATCH v5] memcg: expose socket memory pressure in a cgroup · Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
On 10/14/25 10:32 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 04:30:53PM +0200, Daniel Sedlak wrote: [...]quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
How about we track the actions taken by the callers of mem_cgroup_sk_under_memory_pressure()? Basically if network stack reduces the buffer size or whatever the other actions it may take when mem_cgroup_sk_under_memory_pressure() returns, tracking those actions is what I think is needed here, at least for the debugging use-case.I am not against it, but I feel that conveying those tracked actions (or how to represent them) to the user will be much harder. Are there already existing APIs to push this information to the user?I discussed with Wei Wang and she suggested we should start tracking the calls to tcp_adjust_rcv_ssthresh() first. So, something like the following. I would like feedback frm networking folks as well:
Looks like a good start. Are you planning on sending this patch separately, or can we include it in our v6 (with maybe slight modifications)?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 873e510d6f8d..5fe254813123 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ enum memcg_memory_event { MEMCG_SWAP_HIGH, MEMCG_SWAP_MAX, MEMCG_SWAP_FAIL, + MEMCG_SOCK_THROTTLED,
This probably should be MEMCG_TCP_SOCK_THROTTLED, because it checks only tcp_under_memory_pressure, however there is also the sk_under_memory_pressure used in net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c:6597 to also reduce the sending rate. Or also add the counter there and keep the name? Thanks! Daniel