From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx155.postini.com [74.125.245.155]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFEEB6B0068 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 04:46:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <506957AC.5070206@parallels.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:43:24 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure References: <20120927142822.GG3429@suse.de> <20120927144942.GB4251@mtj.dyndns.org> <50646977.40300@parallels.com> <20120927174605.GA2713@localhost> <50649EAD.2050306@parallels.com> <20120930075700.GE10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <20120930080249.GF10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <1348995388.2458.8.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20120930103732.GK10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <1349004352.2458.34.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20121001005717.GM10383@mtj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20121001005717.GM10383@mtj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: James Bottomley , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Greg Thelen On 10/01/2012 04:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, James. > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:25:52PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: >> But you've got to ask yourself who cares about accurate accounting per >> container of dentry and inode objects? They're not objects that any >> administrator is used to limiting. What we at parallels care about >> isn't accurately accounting them, it's that one container can't DoS >> another by exhausting system resources. That's achieved equally well by >> first charge slab accounting, so we don't really have an interest in >> pushing object accounting code for which there's no use case. > > Isn't it more because the use cases you have on mind don't share > dentries/inodes too much? Wildly incorrect accounting definitely > degrades container isolation and can lead to unexpected behaviors. > >> All we need kernel memory accounting and limiting for is DoS prevention. >> There aren't really any system administrators who care about Kernel >> Memory accounting (at least until the system goes oom) because there are >> no absolute knobs for it (all there is are a set of weird and wonderful >> heuristics, like dirty limit ratio and drop caches). Kernel memory > > I think that's because the mechanism currently doesn't exist. If one > wants to control how memory is distributed across different cgroups, > it's logical to control kernel memory too. The resource in question > is the actual memory after all. I think at least google would be > interested in it, so, no, I don't agree that nobody wants it. If that > is the case, we're working towards the wrong direction. > >> usage has a whole set of regulatory infrastructure for trying to make it >> transparent to the user. >> >> Don't get me wrong: if there were some easy way to get proper memory >> accounting for free, we'd be happy but, because it has no practical >> application for any of our customers, there's a limited price we're >> willing to pay to get it. > > Even on purely technical ground, it could be that first-use is the > right trade off if other more accurate approaches are too difficult > and most workloads are happy with such approach. I'm still a bit > weary to base userland interface decisions on that tho. > For the record, user memory also suffers a bit from being always constrained to first-touch accounting. Greg Thelen is working on alternative solutions to make first-accounting the default in a configurable environment, as he explained in the kernel summit. When that happens, kernel memory can take advantage of it for free. -- 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