Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 2:36 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:32:10PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > I guess it boils down to which we want:
> > > > (a) Limit the amount of memory processes in a cgroup can be pinned/locked.
> > > > (b) Limit the amount of memory charged to a cgroup that can be pinned/locked.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal is doing (a), I suppose if this was part of memcg it
> > > > would be (b), right?
> > > >
> > > > I am not saying it should be one or the other, I am just making sure
> > > > my understanding is clear.
> > >
> > > I don't quite understand what the distinction would mean in practice. It's
> > > just odd to put locked memory in a separate controller from interface POV.
> >
> > Assume we have 2 cgroups, A and B. A process in cgroup A creates a
> > tmpfs file and writes to it, so the memory is now charged to cgroup A.
> > Now imagine a process in cgroup B tries to lock this memory.
> > - With (a) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup A's
> > limit, because cgroup A is charged for the memory.
> > - With (b) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup B's
> > limit, because a process in cgroup B is locking the memory.
> >
> > I agree that it is confusing from an interface POV.
>
> Oh yeah, that's confusing. I'd go with (a) for consistency with the rest of
> memcg - locked memory should fit inside e.g. memory.max. The problem with
> shared memory accounting exists for non-locked memory as well and prolly
> best to handle the same way rather than handling differently.

+Michal Hocko +Roman Gushchin +Shakeel Butt for visibility with memcg.

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun