On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:17:52 +0400
Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[[ v3: merge Kirill's suggestions, + a destroy-related bugfix ]]
[[ v4: Fix a bug with non-mounted cgroups + disallow task movement ]]
[[ v5: Compile bug with modular ipv6 + tcp files in bytes ]]
I am submitting this again merging most of your comments. I've decided to
leave some of them out:
* I am not using res_counters for allocated_memory. Besides being more
expensive than what we need, to make it work in a nice way, we'd have
to change the !cgroup code, including other protocols than tcp. Also,
* I am not using failcnt and max_usage_in_bytes for it. I believe the value
of those lies more in the allocation than in the pressure control. Besides,
fail conditions lie mostly outside of the memory cgroup's control. (Actually,
a soft_limit makes a lot of sense, and I do plan to introduce it in a follow
If you agree with the above, and there are any other pressing issues, let me
know and I will address them ASAP. Otherwise, let's discuss it. I'm always open.
I'm not familar with reuqirements of users. So, I appreciate your choices.
What I adivse you here is taking a deep breath. Making new version every day
is not good for reviewing process ;)
(It's now -rc8 and merge will not be so quick, anyway.)
At this stage, my concern is view of interfaces and documenation, and future plans.
Let me give a try explanation by myself. (Correct me ;)
I added some questions but I'm sorry you've already answered.
New interfaces are 5 files. All files exists only for non-root memory cgroup.
If 1, kmem_limit_in_bytes/kmem_usage_in_bytes works.
If 0, kmem_limit_in_bytes/kmem_usage_in_bytes doesn't work and all kmem
usages are controlled under memory.limit_in_bytes.
Question:I think it should be forbidden. It was raised by Kirill before, and IIRC, he specifically requested it to be. (Okay: Saying it now, makes me realizes that the child can have set it to 1 while parent was 1. But then parent sets it to 0... I don't think I am handling this case).
- What happens when parent/chidlren cgroup has different indepedent_kmem_limit ?
- What happens at creating a new cgroup with use_hierarchy==1.
Both files works independently for _Now_. And memory.kmem_usage_in_bytes and
memory.kmem_tcp.usage_in_bytes has no relationships.
In future plan, kmem.usage_in_bytes should includes tcp.kmem_usage_in_bytes.
And kmem.limit_in_bytes should be the limiation of sum of all kmem.xxxx.limit_in_bytes.
It is not that it is difficult.
- Why this integration is difficult ?
Can't tcp-limit-code borrows some amount of charges in batch from kmem_limitSorry, I don't know what exactly do you mean. Can you clarify?
and use it ?
- Don't you need a stat file to indicate "tcp memory pressure works!" ?
It can be obtained already ?