linux-kernel - Re: [-mm][PATCH 4/4] Add memrlimit controller accounting and control (v4)

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]

Message-ID: <6599ad830805150039u76c9002cg6c873fd71e687a69@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2008 00:39:45 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, "Sudhir Kumar" <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 4/4] Add memrlimit controller accounting and control (v4)

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Balbir Singh
<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>  I want to focus on this conclusion/assertion, since it takes care of
>  most of the locking related discussion above, unless I missed
>  something.
>
>  My concern with using mmap_sem, is that
>
>  1. It's highly contended (every page fault, vma change, etc)

But the only *new* cases of taking the mmap_sem that this would
introduce would be:

- on a failed vm limit charge
- when a task exit/exec causes an mm ownership change
- when a task moves between two cgroups in the memrlimit hierarchy.

All of these should be rare events, so I don't think the additional
contention is a worry.

>  2. It's going to make the locking hierarchy deeper and complex

Yes, potentially. But if the upside of that is that we eliminate a
lock/unlock on a shared lock on every mmap/munmap call, it might well
be worth it.

>  3. It's not appropriate to call all the accounting callbacks with
>    the mmap_sem() held, since the undo operations _can get_ complicated
>    at the caller.
>

Can you give an example?

>  I would prefer introducing a new lock, so that other subsystems are
>  not affected.
>

For getting the first cut of the memrlimit controller working this may
well make sense. But it would be nice to avoid it longer-term.

Paul
--
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/