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

[Tejun Heo]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:45:15AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Multiple cgroup can pin the same page, so it is not as simple as just
> > transfering ownership, we need multi-ownership and to really fix the
> > memcg limitations with MAP_SHARED without an API impact.
> > 
> > You are right that pinning is really just a special case of
> > allocation, but there is a reason the memcg was left with weak support
> > for MAP_SHARED and changing that may be more than just hard but an
> > infeasible trade off..
> > 
> > At least I don't have a good idea how to even approach building a
> > reasonable datstructure that can track the number of
> > charges per-cgroup per page. :\
> 
> As I wrote above, I don't think the problem here is the case of pages being
> shared by multiple cgroups concurrently. We can leave that problem for
> another thread. However, if we want to support accounting and control of
> pinned memory, we really shouldn't introduce a fundmental discrepancy like
> the owner and pinner disagreeing with each other. At least conceptually, the
> solution is rather straight-forward - whoever pins a page should also claim
> the ownership of it.

Ah, sorry, I missed the part about multiple cgroups pinning the same page.
Yeah, I can't think of a good answer for that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun