linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit.

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:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:35:23 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:50:08 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-08-28 13:23:21]:
> 
> > This patch tries to modify softlimit handling in memcg/res_counter.
> > There are 2 reasons in general.
> > 
> >  1. soft_limit can use only against sub-hierarchy root.
> >     Because softlimit tree is sorted by usage, putting prural groups
> >     under hierarchy (which shares usage) will just adds noise and unnecessary
> >     mess. This patch limits softlimit feature only to hierarchy root.
> >     This will make softlimit-tree maintainance better. 
> > 
> >  2. In these days, it's reported that res_counter can be bottleneck in
> >     massively parallel enviroment. We need to reduce jobs under spinlock.
> >     The reason we check softlimit at res_counter_charge() is that any member
> >     in hierarchy can have softlimit.
> >     But by chages in "1", only hierarchy root has soft_limit. We can omit
> >     hierarchical check in res_counter.
> > 
> > After this patch, soft limit is avaliable only for root of sub-hierarchy.
> > (Anyway, softlimit for hierarchy children just makes users confused, hard-to-use)
> >
> 
> 
> I need some time to digest this change, if the root is a hiearchy root
> then only root can support soft limits? I think the change makes it
> harder to use soft limits. Please help me understand better. 
> 
I poitned out this issue many many times while you wrote patch.

memcg has "sub tree". hierarchy here means "sub tree" with use_hierarchy =1.

Assume


	/cgroup/Users/use_hierarchy=0
		  Gold/ use_hierarchy=1 
		     Bob
		     Mike
		  Silver/use_hierarchy=1
		     
		/System/use_hierarchy=1
	
In flat, there are 3 sub trees.
	/cgroup/Users/Gold   (Gold has /cgroup/Users/Gold/Bog, /cgroup/Users/Gold/Mike)
	/cgroup/Users/Silver .....
	/cgroup/System	     .....

Then, subtrees means a group which inherits charges by use_hierarchy=1

In current implementation, softlimit can be set to arbitrary cgroup. 
Then, following ops are allowed.
==
	/cgroup/Users/Gold softlimit= 1G
	/cgroup/Users/Gold/Bob  softlimit=800M
	/cgroup/Users/Gold/Mike softlimit=800M
==

Then, how your RB-tree for softlimit management works ?

When softlimit finds /cgroup/Users/Gold/, it will reclaim memory from
all 3 groups by hierarchical_reclaim. If softlimit finds
/cgroup/Users/Gold/Bob, reclaim from Bob means recalaim from Gold.

Then, to keep the RB-tree neat, you have to extract all related cgroups and
re-insert them all, every time.
(But current code doesn't do that. It's broken.)

Current soft-limit RB-tree will be easily broken i.e. not-sorted correctly
if used under use_hierarchy=1.

My patch disallows set softlimit to Bob and Mike, just allows against Gold
because there can be considered as the same class, hierarchy.

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/