[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxgJqn0CJaf=LMH-iv2g1MJZwPM97K6iCtzrcY3eoN6KjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:36:18 +0200
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Yang Shi <yang.s@...baba-inc.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a nicer alternative, instead of failing the file access,
>> an overflow event can be queued. I sent a patch for that and Jan
>> agreed to the concept, but thought we should let user opt-in for this
>> change:
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=150944704716447&w=2
>>
>> So IMO, if user opts-in for OVERFLOW instead of ENOMEM,
>> charging the listener memcg would be non controversial.
>> Otherwise, I cannot say that starting to charge the listener memgc
>> for events won't break any application.
>>
>
> Thanks Amir, I will send out patches soon for directed charging for
> fsnotify. Also are you planning to work on the opt-in overflow for the
> above case? Should I wait for your patch?
>
Don't wait for me. You can pick up my simple patch if you like
to implement "opt-in for charging listener memcg" it would
make sense with that change.
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists