linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

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, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:06 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:20:54 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > 2. *please* handle NUMA
> > >    There is a fundamental difference between global VMM and memcg.
> > >      global VMM - reclaim memory at memory shortage.
> > >      memcg     - for reclaim memory at memory limit
> > >    Then, memcg wasn't required to handle place-of-memory at hitting limit. 
> > >    *just reducing the usage* was enough.
> > >    In this set, you try to handle memory shortage handling.
> > >    So, please handle NUMA, i.e. "what node do you want to reclaim memory from ?"
> > >    If not, 
> > >     - memory placement of Apps can be terrible.
> > >     - cannot work well with cpuset. (I think)
> > > 
> > 
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() handles NUMA right? We start with the
> > node_zonelists of the current node on which we are executing.  I can pass on the
> > zonelist from __alloc_pages_internal() to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(). Is
> > there anything else you had in mind?
> > 
> Assume following case of a host with 2 nodes. and following mount style.
> 
> mount -t cgroup -o memory,cpuset none /opt/cgroup/
> 
>   
>   /Group1: cpu 0-1, mem=0 limit=1G, soft-limit=700M
>   /Group2: cpu 2-3, mem=1 limit=1G  soft-limit=700M
>   ....
>   /Groupxxxx
> 
> Assume a environ after some workload, 
> 
>   /Group1: cpu 0-1, mem=0 limit=1G, soft-limit=700M usage=990M
>   /Group2: cpu 2-3, mem=1 limit=1G  soft-limit=700M usage=400M
> 
> *And* memory of node"1" is in shortage and the kernel has to reclaim
> memory from node "1".
> 
> Your routine tries to relclaim memory from a group, which exceeds soft-limit
> ....Group1. But it's no help because Group1 doesn't contains any memory in Node1.
> And make it worse, your routine doen't tries to call try_to_free_pages() in global
> LRU when your soft-limit reclaim some memory. So, if a task in Group 1 continues
> to allocate memory at some speed, memory shortage in Group2 will not be recovered,
> easily.
> 
> This includes 2 aspects of trouble.
>  - Group1's memory is reclaimed but it's wrong.
>  - Group2's try_to_free_pages() may took very long time.
> 
A bit more inforamtion, to be honest, I don't understand this perfectly.

But I convice there is some difference between limit and shortage.

in 2.6.26-rc5-mm3's shrink_zones() supprots cpuset by this.

==
                if (scan_global_lru(sc)) {
                        if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
                                continue;
                        note_zone_scanning_priority(zone, priority);

                        if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone) &&
                                                priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
                                continue;       /* Let kswapd poll it */
                        sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
                } else {
                        /*
                         * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
                         * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
                         */
                        sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
                        mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(sc->mem_cgroup,
                                                        priority);
                }
==

First point is (maybe) my mistake. We have to add cpuset hardwall check to memcg
part. (I will write a patch soon.)

Second point is  when memory shortage is caused by some routine which is not in
cpuset. In this case, Group1's memory can be reclaimed w/o benefits.
not big trouble ?


Thanks,
-Kame



























--
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/