linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:10:39 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v2)

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:10 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-02-17 13:03:52]:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:35:26 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to add any new big burden to kernel hackers of memory management,
> > they work hard to improve memory reclaim. This patch will change the behavior.
> > 
> 
> I don't think I agree, this approach suggests that before doing global
> reclaim, there are several groups that are using more than their
> share of memory, so it makes sense to reclaim from them first.
> 

> 
> > BTW, in typical bad case, several threads on cpus goes into memory recalim at once and
> > all thread will visit this memcg's soft-limit tree at once and soft-limit will
> > not work as desired anyway.
> > You can't avoid this problem at alloc_page() hot-path.
> 
> Even if all threads go into soft-reclaim at once, the tree will become
> empty after a point and we will just return saying there are no more
> memcg's to reclaim from (we remove the memcg from the tree when
> reclaiming), then those threads will go into regular reclaim if there
> is still memory pressure.

Yes. the largest-excess group will be removed. So, it seems that it doesn't work
as designed. rbtree is considered as just a hint ? If so, rbtree seems to be
overkill.

just a question:
Assume memcg under hierarchy.
   ../group_A/                 usage=1G, soft_limit=900M  hierarchy=1
              01/              usage=200M, soft_limit=100M
              02/              usage=300M, soft_limit=200M
              03/              usage=500M, soft_limit=300M  <==== 200M over.
                 004/          usage=200M, soft_limit=100M
                 005/          usage=300M, soft_limit=200M

At memory shortage, group 03's memory will be reclaimed 
  - reclaim memory from 03, 03/004, 03/005

When 100M of group 03' memory is reclaimed, group_A 's memory is reclaimd at the
same time, implicitly. Doesn't this break your rb-tree ?

I recommend you that soft-limit can be only applied to the node which is top of
hierarchy.
 
> > 
> > > > 3. After this patch, res_counter is no longer for general purpose res_counter...
> > > >    It seems to have too many unnecessary accessories for general purpose.  
> > > 
> > > Why not? Soft limits are a feature of any controller. The return of
> > > highest ancestor might be the only policy we impose right now. But as
> > > new controllers start using res_counter, we can clearly add a policy
> > > callback.
> > > 
> > I think you forget that memroy cgroups is an only controller in which the kernel
> > can reduce the usage of resource without any harmful to users.
> > soft-limit is nonsense for general resources, I think.
> > 
> 
> Really? Even for CPUs? soft-limit is a form of shares (please don't
> confuse with cpu.shares). Soft limits is used as a way of implementing
> work conserving controllers.
> 

I don't think cpu needs this. It works under share and no hardlimit.

THanks,
-Kame


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/