[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613211227.GG31708@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:12:27 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/18] cgroup_pids: track maximum pids
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:44:09PM +0300, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> Track maximum pids in the cgroup, present it in cgroup pids.current_max.
"max" is often used for maximum limits in cgroup. I think "watermark"
or "high_watermark" would be a lot clearer.
> @@ -236,6 +246,14 @@ static void pids_free(struct task_struct *task)
> pids_uncharge(pids, 1);
> }
>
> +static void pids_fork(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct pids_cgroup *pids = css_pids(task_css(task, pids_cgrp_id));
> +
> + if (atomic64_read(&pids->cur_max) < atomic64_read(&pids->counter))
> + atomic64_set(&pids->cur_max, atomic64_read(&pids->counter));
> +}
Wouldn't it make more sense to track high watermark from the charge
functions instead? I don't get why this requires a separate fork
callback. Also, racing atomic64_set's are racy. The counter can end
up with a lower number than it should be.
> @@ -300,6 +326,11 @@ static struct cftype pids_files[] = {
> .read_s64 = pids_current_read,
> .flags = CFTYPE_NOT_ON_ROOT,
> },
> + {
> + .name = "current_max",
Please make this "high_watermark" field in pids.stats file.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists