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: <20080515082553.GK31115@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2008 13:55:53 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	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)

* Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> [2008-05-15 00:39:45]:

> 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

Why a failed charge? Aren't we talking of moving all charge/uncharge
under mmap_sem?

> - when a task exit/exec causes an mm ownership change

Yes, in the mm_owner_changed callbacks

> - when a task moves between two cgroups in the memrlimit hierarchy.
> 

Yes, this would nest cgroup_mutex and mmap_sem. Not sure if that would
be a bad side-effect.

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

We do make several of all charge calls under the mmap_sem, but not
all of them. So the additional contention might not be all that bad.

> 
> >  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?

Some paths of the uncharge are not under mmap_sem. Undoing the
operation there seemed complex.

> 
> >  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.

OK, so here's what I am going to try and do

Refactor the code to try and use mmap_sem and see what I come up
with. Basically use mmap_sem for all charge/uncharge operations as
well use mmap_sem in read_mode in the move_task() and
mm_owner_changed() callbacks. That should take care of the race
conditions discussed, unless I missed something.
Try and instrument insert_vm_struct() for charge/uncharge

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/