linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] memcg: get rid of mm

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:	Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:09:06 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-07-15 10:54:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > @@ -474,7 +519,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > -	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(mm->owner));
> > > > > +	memcg = rcu_dereference(mm->memcg);
> > > > >  	if (unlikely(!memcg))
> > > > >  		goto out;
> > > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > If I'm not mistaken, mm->memcg equals NULL for any task in the root
> > > > memory cgroup
> > > 
> > > right
> > > 
> > > > (BTW, it it's true, it's worth mentioning in the comment
> > > > to mm->memcg definition IMO). As a result, we won't account the stats
> > > > for such tasks, will we?
> > > 
> > > well spotted! This is certainly a bug. There are more places which are
> > > checking for mm->memcg being NULL and falling back to root_mem_cgroup. I
> > > think it would be better to simply use root_mem_cgroup right away. We
> > > can setup init_mm.memcg = root_mem_cgroup during initialization and be
> > > done with it. What do you think? The diff is in the very end of the
> > > email (completely untested yet).
> > 
> > I'd prefer initializing init_mm.memcg to root_mem_cgroup. This way we
> > wouldn't have to check whether mm->memcg is NULL or not here and there,
> > which would make the code cleaner IMO.
> 
> So the patch I've posted will not work as a simple boot test told me. We
> are initializing root_mem_cgroup too late. This will be more complicated.
> I will leave this idea outside of this patch series and will come up
> with a separate patch which will clean this up later. I will update the
> doc discouraging any use of mm->memcg outside of memcg and use accessor
> functions instead. There is only one currently (mm/debug.c) and this is
> used only to print the pointer which is safe.

Why can't we make root_mem_cgroup statically allocated? AFAICS it's a
common practice - e.g. see blkcg_root, root_task_group.

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/