linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/23] io-controller: blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to track async bios.

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: <20090903.112423.226782505.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Date:	Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:24:23 +0900 (JST)
From:	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
To:	vgoyal@...hat.com
Cc:	nauman@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	jmarchan@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/23] io-controller: blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to
 track async bios.

Hi Vivek,

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > - Somebody also gave an example where there is a memory hogging process and
> > > > > >  possibly pushes out some processes to swap. It does not sound fair to
> > > > > >  charge those proccess for that swap writeout. These processes never
> > > > > >  requested swap IO.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that swap writeouts should be charged to the memory hogging
> > > > process, because the process consumes more resources and it should get
> > > > a penalty.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > A process requesting memory gets IO penalty? IMHO, swapping is a kernel 
> > > mechanism and kernel's way of providing extended RAM. If we want to solve
> > > the issue of memory hogging by a process then right way to solve is to use
> > > memory controller and not by charging the process for IO activity.
> > > Instead, proabably a more suitable way is to charge swap activity to root
> > > group (where by default all the kernel related activity goes).   
> > 
> > No. In the current blkio-cgroup, a process which uses a large amount
> > of memory gets penalty, not a memory requester.
> > 
> 
> At ioband level you just get to see bio and page. How do you decide wheter
> this bio is being issued by a process which is a memory hog?
> 
> In fact requester of memory could be anybody. It could be memory hog or a
> different process. So are you saying that you got a mechanism where you 
> can detect that a process is memory hog and charge swap activity to it.
> IOW, if there are two processes A and B and assume A is the memory hog and
> then B requests for memory which triggers lot of swap IO, then you can
> charge all that IO to memory hog A?

When an annoymou page is allocated, blkio-cgroup sets an ID to the
page. And then when the page is going to swap out, dm-ioband can know
who the owner of the page is by retrieving ID from the page.

In the above case, since the pages of the process A are swapped-out, 
dm-ioband charges swap IO to the process A.

> Can you please point me to the relevant code in dm-ioband?
> 
> IMHO, to keep things simple, all swapping activity should be charged to
> root group and be considered as kernel activity and user space not be
> charged for that.

Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
--
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/