From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932288Ab1IRTMK (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:12:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:49211 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756573Ab1IRTMI (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:12:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4E764259.5070209@parallels.com> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:11:21 -0300 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" CC: , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller References: <1316051175-17780-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1316051175-17780-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20110917174535.GA1658@shutemov.name> <4E7567E0.9010401@parallels.com> <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> In-Reply-To: <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [187.106.51.14] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/18/2011 04:05 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:39:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right? >> Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup. >> Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel >> memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is >> just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered >> through all >> the proc files that show slab usage, I guess? > > It's better to leave root cgroup without accounting. At least for now. > We can add it later if needed. Fair. >>> >>>> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft) >>>> else >>>> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name); >>>> break; >>>> + case _KMEM: >>>> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name); >>>> + break; >>>> + >>> >>> Always zero in root cgroup? >> >> Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe? > > -ENOSYS? > I'd personally prefer WARN_ON. It is good symmetry from userspace PoV to always be able to get a value out of it. Also, it something goes wrong and it is not zero for some reason, this will help us find it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:11:21 -0300 Message-ID: <4E764259.5070209@parallels.com> References: <1316051175-17780-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1316051175-17780-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20110917174535.GA1658@shutemov.name> <4E7567E0.9010401@parallels.com> <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , , , , , To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 09/18/2011 04:05 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:39:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right? >> Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup. >> Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel >> memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is >> just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered >> through all >> the proc files that show slab usage, I guess? > > It's better to leave root cgroup without accounting. At least for now. > We can add it later if needed. Fair. >>> >>>> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft) >>>> else >>>> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name); >>>> break; >>>> + case _KMEM: >>>> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name); >>>> + break; >>>> + >>> >>> Always zero in root cgroup? >> >> Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe? > > -ENOSYS? > I'd personally prefer WARN_ON. It is good symmetry from userspace PoV to always be able to get a value out of it. Also, it something goes wrong and it is not zero for some reason, this will help us find it. -- 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9FF9000BD for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E764259.5070209@parallels.com> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:11:21 -0300 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller References: <1316051175-17780-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1316051175-17780-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20110917174535.GA1658@shutemov.name> <4E7567E0.9010401@parallels.com> <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> In-Reply-To: <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net, gthelen@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 09/18/2011 04:05 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:39:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right? >> Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup. >> Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel >> memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is >> just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered >> through all >> the proc files that show slab usage, I guess? > > It's better to leave root cgroup without accounting. At least for now. > We can add it later if needed. Fair. >>> >>>> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft) >>>> else >>>> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name); >>>> break; >>>> + case _KMEM: >>>> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name); >>>> + break; >>>> + >>> >>> Always zero in root cgroup? >> >> Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe? > > -ENOSYS? > I'd personally prefer WARN_ON. It is good symmetry from userspace PoV to always be able to get a value out of it. Also, it something goes wrong and it is not zero for some reason, this will help us find it. -- 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: email@kvack.org