On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 4:47 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let me quickly give couple of high level comments. > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:34:34PM +0000, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > Some protocols (e.g., TCP, UDP) have their own memory accounting for > > socket buffers and charge memory to global per-protocol counters such > > as /proc/net/ipv4/tcp_mem. > > > > When running under a non-root cgroup, > > Remove this non-root cgroup as we may change in future to also associate > with root memcg for stat purpose. In addition, we may switch sk pointing > to objcg instead of memcg. Makes sense. Will remove the part. > > > this memory is also charged to > > the memcg as sock in memory.stat. > > > > We do not need to pay costs for two orthogonal memory accounting > > mechanisms. > > > > This series allows decoupling memcg from the global memory accounting > > (memcg + tcp_mem -> memcg) if socket is configured as such by BPF prog. > > > > I understand that you need fine grained control but I see more users > interested in system level settings i.e. either through config, boot > param or sysctl, let the user/admin disable protocol specific accounting > if memcg is enabled. Considering tcp/udp/sctp sockets are not created in the early boot stage, I think sysctl would be enough and we don't need to control the default value with a boot param (sysctl.conf would be early enough). > > Please rename SK_BPF_MEMCG_SOCK_ISOLATED to something more appropriate. > The isolated word is giving wrong impression. We want something which > specify that the kernel is only doing memcg accounting and not protocol > specific accounting for this socket. So, something like > SK_BPF_MEMCG_ONLY make more sense. Maybe _EXCLUSIVE would be a bit clearer ? net.core.memcg_exclusive (sysctl) SK_BPF_MEMCG_EXCLUSIVE or much clearer but lengthy ones ? net.core.memcg_no_per_protocol_account SK_BPF_MEMCG_NO_PER_PROTOCOL_ACCOUNT net.core.memcg_no_global_account SK_BPF_MEMCG_NO_GLOBAL_ACCOUNT I'm bad at naming. Do you have any preference ?
