Re: [PATCH] inotify, memcg: account inotify instances to kmemcg

[Shakeel Butt]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:25 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 4:31 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 1:48 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:11 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Currently the fs sysctl inotify/max_user_instances is used to limit the
> > > > number of inotify instances on the system. For systems running multiple
> > > > workloads, the per-user namespace sysctl max_inotify_instances can be
> > > > used to further partition inotify instances. However there is no easy
> > > > way to set a sensible system level max limit on inotify instances and
> > > > further partition it between the workloads. It is much easier to charge
> > > > the underlying resource (i.e. memory) behind the inotify instances to
> > > > the memcg of the workload and let their memory limits limit the number
> > > > of inotify instances they can create.
> > >
> > > Not that I have a problem with this patch, but what problem does it try to
> > > solve?
> >
> > I am aiming for the simplicity to not set another limit which can
> > indirectly be limited by memcg limits. I just want to set the memcg
> > limit on our production environment which runs multiple workloads on a
> > system and not think about setting a sensible value to
> > max_user_instances in production. I would prefer to set
> > max_user_instances to max int and let the memcg limits of the
> > workloads limit their inotify usage.
> >
>
> understood.
> and I guess the multiple workloads cannot run each in their own userns?
> because then you wouldn't need to change max_user_instances limit.
>

No workloads can run in their own user namespace but please note that
max_user_instances is shared between all the user namespaces.

>
[snip]
> > > Any reason why you did not include fanotify in this patch?
> >
> > The motivation was inotify's max_user_instances but we can charge
> > fsnotify_group for fanotify as well. Though I would prefer that to be
> > a separate patch. Let me know what you prefer?
> >
>
> I would prefer to add the helper fsnotify_alloc_user_group()
> that will use the GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT allocation flags
> internally.
>
> fsnotify_alloc_group() is used by all backends that initialize a single
> group instance for internal use and  fsnotify_alloc_user_group() will be
> used by inotify/fanotify when users create instances.
> I see no reason to separate that to two patches.
>

SGTM.