[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200921134200.GK12990@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:42:00 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification
[Cc Tejun and Christian - this is a part of a larger discussion which is
not directly related to this particular question so let me trim the
original email to the bare minimum.]
On Fri 18-09-20 12:40:32, Peter Xu wrote:
[...]
> One issue is when we charge for cgroup we probably can't do that onto the new
> mm/task, since copy_namespaces() is called after copy_mm(). I don't know
> enough about cgroup, I thought the child will inherit the parent's, but I'm not
> sure. Or, can we change that order of copy_namespaces() && copy_mm()? I don't
> see a problem so far but I'd like to ask first..
I suspect you are referring to CLONE_INTO_CGROUP, right? I have only now
learned about this feature so I am not deeply familiar with all the
details and I might be easily wrong. Normally all the cgroup aware
resources are accounted to the parent's cgroup. For memcg that includes
all the page tables, early CoW and other allocations with __GFP_ACCOUNT.
IIUC CLONE_INTO_CGROUP properly then this hasn't changed as the child is
associated to its new cgroup (and memcg) only in cgroup_post_fork. If
that is correct then we might have quite a lot of resources bound to
child's lifetime but accounted to the parent's memcg which can lead to
all sorts of interesting problems (e.g. unreclaimable memory - even by
the oom killer).
Christian, Tejun is this the expected semantic or I am just misreading
the code?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists