Re: [PATCH 16/23] slab: provide kmalloc_no_account
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] slab: provide kmalloc_no_account
- From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:13:51 +0900
- Cc: cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, devel@xxxxxxxxxx, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx, Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <4F980A42.6040308@parallels.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
(2012/04/25 23:29), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 10:44 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/04/23 8:53), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>> Some allocations need to be accounted to the root memcg regardless
>>> of their context. One trivial example, is the allocations we do
>>> during the memcg slab cache creation themselves. Strictly speaking,
>>> they could go to the parent, but it is way easier to bill them to
>>> the root cgroup.
>>>
>>> Only generic kmalloc allocations are allowed to be bypassed.
>>>
>>> The function is not exported, because drivers code should always
>>> be accounted.
>>>
>>> This code is mosly written by Suleiman Souhlal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Christoph Lameter<cl@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Pekka Enberg<penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@xxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> Seems reasonable.
>> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Hmm...but can't we find the 'context' in automatic way ?
>>
>
> Not that I can think of. Well, actually, not without adding some tests
> to the allocation path I'd rather not (like testing for the return
> address and then doing a table lookup, etc)
>
> An option would be to store it in the task_struct. So we would allocate
> as following:
>
> memcg_skip_account_start(p);
> do_a_bunch_of_allocations();
> memcg_skip_account_stop(p);
>
> The problem with that, is that it is quite easy to abuse.
> but if we don't export that to modules, it would be acceptable.
>
> Question is, given the fact that the number of kmalloc_no_account() is
> expected to be really small, is it worth it?
>
ok, but.... There was an idea __GFP_NOACCOUNT, which is better ?
Are you afraid that__GFP_NOACCOUNT can be spread too much rather than kmalloc_no_account() ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux ARM Kernel]
[Linux ARM]
[Linux Omap]
[Fedora ARM]
[IETF Annouce]
[Security]
[Bugtraq]
[Linux]
[Linux OMAP]
[Linux MIPS]
[ECOS]
[Tools]
[DDR & Rambus]
[Asterisk Internet PBX]
[Linux API]
[Monitors]