From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx202.postini.com [74.125.245.202]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 038D86B007E for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5683EE0C0 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:12:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EE045DE50 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:12:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2E645DE4D for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:12:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2251DB8041 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:12:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.145]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9A11DB8037 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:12:13 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:10:44 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] memcg: Introduce __GFP_NOACCOUNT. Message-Id: <20120301091044.1a62d42c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1330383533-20711-1-git-send-email-ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> <1330383533-20711-5-git-send-email-ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> <20120229150041.62c1feeb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Suleiman Souhlal Cc: Suleiman Souhlal , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, glommer@parallels.com, penberg@kernel.org, yinghan@google.com, hughd@google.com, gthelen@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@openvz.org On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:09:50 -0800 Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:58:47 -0800 > > Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > > > >> This is used to indicate that we don't want an allocation to be accounted > >> to the current cgroup. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal > > > > I don't like this. > > > > Please add > > > > ___GFP_ACCOUNT A "account this allocation to memcg" > > > > Or make this as slab's flag if this work is for slab allocation. > > We would like to account for all the slab allocations that happen in > process context. > > Manually marking every single allocation or kmem_cache with a GFP flag > really doesn't seem like the right thing to do.. > > Can you explain why you don't like this flag? > For example, tcp buffer limiting has another logic for buffer size controling. _AND_, most of kernel pages are not reclaimable at all. I think you should start from reclaimable caches as dcache, icache etc. If you want to use this wider, you can discuss + #define GFP_KERNEL (.....| ___GFP_ACCOUNT) in future. I'd like to see small start because memory allocation failure is always terrible and make the system unstable. Even if you notify "Ah, kernel memory allocation failed because of memory.limit? and many unreclaimable memory usage. Please tweak the limitation or kill tasks!!" The user can't do anything because he can't create any new task because of OOM. The system will be being unstable until an admin, who is not under any limit, tweaks something or reboot the system. Please do small start until you provide Eco-System to avoid a case that the admin cannot login and what he can do was only reboot. Thanks, -Kame -- 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