From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f198.google.com (mail-pf0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44806B0033 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf0-f198.google.com with SMTP id f85so15597230pfe.7 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from out0-237.mail.aliyun.com (out0-237.mail.aliyun.com. [140.205.0.237]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o186si14066175pga.260.2017.11.13.11.10.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:10:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg References: <1509128538-50162-1-git-send-email-yang.s@alibaba-inc.com> <20171030124358.GF23278@quack2.suse.cz> <76a4d544-833a-5f42-a898-115640b6783b@alibaba-inc.com> <20171031101238.GD8989@quack2.suse.cz> <20171109135444.znaksm4fucmpuylf@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: "Yang Shi" Message-ID: <10924085-6275-125f-d56b-547d734b6f4e@alibaba-inc.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:10:22 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171109135444.znaksm4fucmpuylf@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , Jan Kara Cc: amir73il@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/9/17 5:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Sorry for the late reply] > > On Tue 31-10-17 11:12:38, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Tue 31-10-17 00:39:58, Yang Shi wrote: > [...] >>> I do agree it is not fair and not neat to account to producer rather than >>> misbehaving consumer, but current memcg design looks not support such use >>> case. And, the other question is do we know who is the listener if it >>> doesn't read the events? >> >> So you never know who will read from the notification file descriptor but >> you can simply account that to the process that created the notification >> group and that is IMO the right process to account to. > > Yes, if the creator is de-facto owner which defines the lifetime of > those objects then this should be a target of the charge. > >> I agree that current SLAB memcg accounting does not allow to account to a >> different memcg than the one of the running process. However I *think* it >> should be possible to add such interface. Michal? > > We do have memcg_kmem_charge_memcg but that would require some plumbing > to hook it into the specific allocation path. I suspect it uses kmalloc, > right? Yes. I took a look at the implementation and the callsites of memcg_kmem_charge_memcg(). It looks it is called by: * charge kmem to memcg, but it is charged to the allocator's memcg * allocate new slab page, charge to memcg_params.memcg I think this is the plumbing you mentioned, right? Thanks, Yang > -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org