linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v6)

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:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:48:03 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v6)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:24:33AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:11 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> > > > without spinlock.
> > > > ==
> > > > void mem_cgroup_update_stat(struct page *page, int idx, bool charge)
> > > > {
> > > > 	pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > > > 	if (unlikely(!pc) || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
> > > > 		return;	
> > > > 	...
> > > > }
> > > > ==
> > > > This can be handle in the same logic of "lock failure" path.
> > > > And we just do ignore accounting.
> > > > 
> > > > There are will be no spinlocks....to do more than this,
> > > > I think we have to use "struct page" rather than "struct page_cgroup".
> > > > 
> > > Hmm..like this ? The bad point of this patch is that this will corrupt FILE_MAPPED
> > > status in root cgroup. This kind of change is not very good.
> > > So, one way is to use this kind of function only for new parameters. Hmm.
> > IMHO, if we disable accounting file stats in root cgroup, it would be better
> > not to show them in memory.stat to avoid confusing users.
> agreed.
> 
> > But, hmm, I think accounting them in root cgroup isn't so meaningless.
> > Isn't making mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit() return false in case of root cgroup enough?
> > 
> The problem is spinlock overhead.
> 
> IMHO, there are 2 excuse for "not accounting" in root cgroup
>  1. Low overhead is always appreciated.
>  2. Root's statistics can be obtained by "total - sum of children".
> 

IIUC, Total sum of children works only if user_hierarchy=1? At the same time
it does not work if there tasks in root cgroup and not in children group.

Vivek
--
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/