From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752728AbdJFTdH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:33:07 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:52237 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752303AbdJFTdF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:33:05 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBToA/riUZc34tEy2ywKugXg/aPwTR04vlArak726bXPklnT2dhBurUWUWSXrjeci8BGD8WEuzW8b+6jHf4MGI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171006075900.icqjx5rr7hctn3zd@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20171005222144.123797-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20171006075900.icqjx5rr7hctn3zd@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod7YN4JCG7Anm2FViyZ0-APYy+nxEd3nyxe5LT_P0FC9wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, mm: account filp and names caches to kmemcg
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>>       names_cachep = kmem_cache_create("names_cache", PATH_MAX, 0,
>> -                     SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
>> +                     SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT, NULL);
>
> I might be wrong but isn't name cache only holding temporary objects
> used for path resolution which are not stored anywhere?
>

Even though they're temporary, many containers can together use a
significant amount of transient uncharged memory. We've seen machines
with 100s of MiBs in names_cache.

>>       filp_cachep = kmem_cache_create("filp", sizeof(struct file), 0,
>> -                     SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN | SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
>> +                     SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN | SLAB_PANIC | SLAB_ACCOUNT, NULL);
>>       percpu_counter_init(&nr_files, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>>  }
>
> Don't we have a limit for the maximum number of open files?
>

Yes, there is a system limit of maximum number of open files. However
this limit is shared between different users on the system and one
user can hog this resource. To cater that, we set the maximum limit
very high and let the memory limit of each user limit the number of
files they can open.