linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (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]

Message-Id: <20090302143250.f47758f9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:32:50 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:10:43 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 09:24:04]:
> 
> > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:59:59 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

> > 
> > At first, it's said "When cgroup people adds something, the kernel gets slow".
> > This is my start point of reviewing. Below is comments to this version of patch.
> > 
> >  1. I think it's bad to add more hooks to res_counter. It's enough slow to give up
> >     adding more fancy things..
> 
> res_counters was desgined to be extensible, why is adding anything to
> it going to make it slow, unless we turn on soft_limits?
> 
You inserted new "if" logic in the core loop.
(What I want to say here is not that this is definitely bad but that "isn't there
 any alternatives which is less overhead.)


> > 
> >  2. please avoid to add hooks to hot-path. In your patch, especially a hook to
> >     mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() is annoying me.
> 
> If soft limits are not enabled, the function does a small check and
> leaves. 
> 
&soft_fail_res is passed always even if memory.soft_limit==ULONG_MAX
res_counter_soft_limit_excess() adds one more function call and spinlock, and irq-off.

> > 
> >  3. please avoid to use global spinlock more. 
> >     no lock is best. mutex is better, maybe.
> > 
> 
> No lock to update a tree which is update concurrently?
> 
Using tree/sort itself is nonsense, I believe.


> >  4. RB-tree seems broken. Following is example. (please note you do all ops
> >     in lazy manner (once in HZ/4.)
> > 
> >    i). while running, the tree is constructed as following
> > 
> >              R           R=exceed=300M
> >             / \ 
> >            A   B      A=exceed=200M  B=exceed=400M
> >    ii) A process B exits, but and usage goes down.
> 
> That is why we have the hook in uncharge. Even if we update and the
> usage goes down, the tree is ordered by usage_in_excess which is
> updated only when the tree is updated. So what you show below does not
> occur. I think I should document the design better.
> 

time_check==true. So, update-tree at uncharge() only happens once in HZ/4
==
@@ -1422,6 +1520,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page *page, enum charge_type ctype)
 	mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
 	unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
 
+	mem_cgroup_check_and_update_tree(mem, true);
 	/* at swapout, this memcg will be accessed to record to swap */
 	if (ctype != MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_SWAPOUT)
 		css_put(&mem->css);
==
Then, not-sorted RB-tree can be there.

BTW,
   time_after(jiffies, 0)
is buggy (see definition). If you want make this true always,
   time_after(jiffies, jiffies +1)

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/