Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Balbir Singh wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> +int mem_cgroup_update_as(struct mm_struct *mm, long nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>>> +	if (mem_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
>>> +		return ret;
>>> +
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	mem = rcu_dereference(mm->mem_cgroup);
>>> +	css_get(&mem->css);
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +
>>> +	if (nr_pages > 0) {
>>> +		if (res_counter_charge(&mem->as_res, (nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE)))
>>> +			ret = 1;
>>> +	} else
>>> +		res_counter_uncharge(&mem->as_res, (-nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
>> No, please, no. Let's make two calls - mem_cgroup_charge_as and mem_cgroup_uncharge_as.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
> 
> Yes, sure :)

Thanks :)

>>> @@ -1117,6 +1117,9 @@ munmap_back:
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (mem_cgroup_update_as(mm, len >> PAGE_SHIFT))
>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>> Why not use existintg cap_vm_enough_memory and co?
>>
> 
> I thought about it and almost used may_expand_vm(), but there is a slight catch
> there. With cap_vm_enough_memory() or security_vm_enough_memory(), they are
> called after total_vm has been calculated. In our case we need to keep the
> cgroups equivalent of total_vm up to date, and we do this in mem_cgorup_update_as.

So? What prevents us from using these hooks? :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/