linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

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, 14 Aug 2012 18:21:55 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

On Thu 09-08-12 17:01:12, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This patch adds the basic infrastructure for the accounting of the slab
> caches. To control that, the following files are created:
> 
>  * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes
>  * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes
>  * memory.kmem.failcnt
>  * memory.kmem.max_usage_in_bytes
> 
> They have the same meaning of their user memory counterparts. They
> reflect the state of the "kmem" res_counter.
> 
> The code is not enabled until a limit is set. This can be tested by the
> flag "kmem_accounted". This means that after the patch is applied, no
> behavioral changes exists for whoever is still using memcg to control
> their memory usage.
> 
> We always account to both user and kernel resource_counters. This
> effectively means that an independent kernel limit is in place when the
> limit is set to a lower value than the user memory. A equal or higher
> value means that the user limit will always hit first, meaning that kmem
> is effectively unlimited.

Well, it contributes to the user limit so it is not unlimited. It just
falls under a different limit and it tends to contribute less. This can
be quite confusing.  I am still not sure whether we should mix the two
things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to
touch the other limit anyway.  Do you have a strong reason to mix the
user and kernel counters?
My impression was that kernel allocation should simply fail while user
allocations might reclaim as well. Why should we reclaim just because of
the kernel allocation (which is unreclaimable from hard limit reclaim
point of view)?
I also think that the whole thing would get much simpler if those two
are split. Anyway if this is really a must then this should be
documented here.
 
One nit bellow.

> People who want to track kernel memory but not limit it, can set this
> limit to a very high number (like RESOURCE_MAX - 1page - that no one
> will ever hit, or equal to the user memory)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Reviewed-by: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index b0e29f4..54e93de 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
[...]
> @@ -4046,8 +4059,23 @@ static int mem_cgroup_write(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
>  			break;
>  		if (type == _MEM)
>  			ret = mem_cgroup_resize_limit(memcg, val);
> -		else
> +		else if (type == _MEMSWAP)
>  			ret = mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(memcg, val);
> +		else if (type == _KMEM) {
> +			ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
> +			if (ret)
> +				break;
> +			/*
> +			 * Once enabled, can't be disabled. We could in theory
> +			 * disable it if we haven't yet created any caches, or
> +			 * if we can shrink them all to death.
> +			 *
> +			 * But it is not worth the trouble
> +			 */
> +			if (!memcg->kmem_accounted && val != RESOURCE_MAX)
> +				memcg->kmem_accounted = true;
> +		} else
> +			return -EINVAL;
>  		break;

This doesn't check for the hierachy so kmem_accounted might not be in 
sync with it's parents. mem_cgroup_create (below) needs to copy
kmem_accounted down from the parent and the above needs to check if this
is a similar dance like mem_cgroup_oom_control_write.

[...]

> @@ -5033,6 +5098,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup *cont)
>  	if (parent && parent->use_hierarchy) {
>  		res_counter_init(&memcg->res, &parent->res);
>  		res_counter_init(&memcg->memsw, &parent->memsw);
> +		res_counter_init(&memcg->kmem, &parent->kmem);
>  		/*
>  		 * We increment refcnt of the parent to ensure that we can
>  		 * safely access it on res_counter_charge/uncharge.
> @@ -5043,6 +5109,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup *cont)
>  	} else {
>  		res_counter_init(&memcg->res, NULL);
>  		res_counter_init(&memcg->memsw, NULL);
> +		res_counter_init(&memcg->kmem, NULL);
>  	}
>  	memcg->last_scanned_node = MAX_NUMNODES;
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->oom_notify);
> -- 
> 1.7.11.2
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/