Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] Display current tcp memory allocation in kmemcgroup

[Glauber Costa]

On 10/03/2011 04:36 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On 10/03/2011 04:25 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:19:18PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > > On 10/03/2011 04:14 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:18:42PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > > > > This patch introduces kmem.tcp_current_memory file, living in the
> > > > > > kmem_cgroup filesystem. It is a simple read-only file that displays the
> > > > > > amount of kernel memory currently consumed by the cgroup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > CC: David S. Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > CC: Eric W. Biederman<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >     Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt |    1 +
> > > > > >     mm/memcontrol.c                  |   11 +++++++++++
> > > > > >     2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> > > > > > index 1ffde3e..f5a539d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> > > > > > @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ Brief summary of control files.
> > > > > >      memory.independent_kmem_limit	 # select whether or not kernel memory limits are
> > > > > >     				   independent of user limits
> > > > > >      memory.kmem.tcp.max_memory      # set/show hard limit for tcp buf memory
> > > > > > + memory.kmem.tcp.current_memory  # show current tcp buf memory allocation
> > > > >
> > > > > Both are in pages, right?
> > > > > Shouldn't it be scaled to bytes and named uniform with other memcg file?
> > > > > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes/usage_in_bytes.
> > > > You are absolutely correct.
> > > > Since the internal tcp comparison works, I just ended up never noticing
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > Should we have failcnt and max_usage_in_bytes for tcp as well?
> >
> > Well, we get a fail count from the tracer anyway, so I don't really see
> > a need for that. I see value in having it for the slab allocation
> > itself, but since this only controls the memory pressure framework, I
> > think we can live without it.
> >
> > That said, this is not a strong opinion. I can add it if you'd prefer.
>
> It's good for userspace to have the same set of files for all domains:
>   - memory;
>   - memory.memsw;
>   - memory.kmem;
>   - memory.kmem.tcp;
>   - etc.
> Userspace can reuse code for handling them in this case.
Fine.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/