linux-kernel - Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (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, 10 Aug 2009 11:00:25 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3)

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-08-10 09:32:29]:

> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:45:30 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > Thanks for the detailed review, here is v3 of the patches against
> > mmotm 6th August. I've documented the TODOs as well. If there are
> > no major objections, I would like this to be included in mmotm
> > for more testing. Any test reports on a large machine would be highly
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Changelog v3->v2
> > 
> > 1. Added more documentation and comments
> > 2. Made the check in mem_cgroup_set_limit strict
> > 3. Increased tolerance per cpu to 64KB.
> > 4. Still have the WARN_ON(), I've kept it for debugging
> >    purposes, may be we should make it a conditional with
> >    DEBUG_VM
> > 
> Because I'll be absent for a while, I don't give any Reviewed-by or Acked-by, now.
> 
> Before leaving, I'd like to write some concerns here.
> 
> 1. you use res_counter_read_positive() in force_empty. It seems force_empty can
>    go into infinite loop. plz check. (especially when some pages are freed or swapped-in
>    in other cpu while force_empry runs.)

OK.. so you want me to use _sum_positive(), will do. In all my testing
using the stress scripts I have, I found no issues with force_empty so
far. But I'll change over.

> 
> 2. In near future, we'll see 256 or 1024 cpus on a system, anyway.
>    Assume 1024cpu system, 64k*1024=64M is a tolerance.
>    Can't we calculate max-tolerane as following ?
>   
>    tolerance = min(64k * num_online_cpus(), limit_in_bytes/100);
>    tolerance /= num_online_cpus();
>    per_cpu_tolerance = min(16k, tolelance);
> 
>    I think automatic runtine adjusting of tolerance will be finally necessary,
>    but above will not be very bad because we can guarantee 1% tolerance.
> 

I agree that automatic tuning will be necessary, but I want to go the
CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_RES_TOLERANCE approach you suggested earlier, since
num_online_cpus() with CPU hotplug can be a bit of a game play and
with Power Management and CPUs going idle, we really don't want to
count those, etc. For now a simple nr_cpu_ids * tolerance and then
get feedback, since it is a heuristic. Again, limit_in_bytes can
change, may be some of this needs to go into resize_limit and
set_limit paths. Right now, I want to keep it simple and see if
others can see the benefits of this patch. Then add some more
heuristics based on your suggestion.

Do you agree?



-- 
	Balbir
--
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/