| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20101025092401.d81a4dce.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:24:01 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Ciju Rajan K <ciju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2][memcg+dirtylimit] Fix overwriting global vm dirty
limit setting by memcg (Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] memcg: per cgroup dirty page
accounting
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:44:38 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> writes:
>
> > Fixed one here.
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > Now, at calculating dirty limit, vm_dirty_param() is called.
> > This function returns dirty-limit related parameters considering
> > memory cgroup settings.
> >
> > Now, assume that vm_dirty_bytes=100M (global dirty limit) and
> > memory cgroup has 1G of pages and 40 dirty_ratio, dirtyable memory is
> > 500MB.
> >
> > In this case, global_dirty_limits will consider dirty_limt as
> > 500 *0.4 = 200MB. This is bad...memory cgroup is not back door.
> >
> > This patch limits the return value of vm_dirty_param() considring
> > global settings.
> >
> > Changelog:
> > - fixed an argument "mem" int to u64
> > - fixed to use global available memory to cap memcg's value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 5 +++--
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > mm/page-writeback.c | 3 ++-
> > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: dirty_limit_new/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- dirty_limit_new.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ dirty_limit_new/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1171,9 +1171,11 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_dirty_param(str
> > * can be moved after our access and writeback tends to take long time. At
> > * least, "memcg" will not be freed while holding rcu_read_lock().
> > */
> > -void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param)
> > +void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param,
> > + u64 mem, u64 global)
> > {
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > + u64 limit, bglimit;
> >
> > if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) {
> > global_vm_dirty_param(param);
> > @@ -1183,6 +1185,32 @@ void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_para
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
> > __mem_cgroup_dirty_param(param, memcg);
> > + /*
> > + * A limitation under memory cgroup is under global vm, too.
> > + */
> > + if (vm_dirty_ratio)
> > + limit = global * vm_dirty_ratio / 100;
> > + else
> > + limit = vm_dirty_bytes;
> > + if (param->dirty_ratio) {
> > + param->dirty_bytes = mem * param->dirty_ratio / 100;
> > + param->dirty_ratio = 0;
> > + }
> > + if (param->dirty_bytes > limit)
> > + param->dirty_bytes = limit;
> > +
> > + if (dirty_background_ratio)
> > + bglimit = global * dirty_background_ratio / 100;
> > + else
> > + bglimit = dirty_background_bytes;
> > +
> > + if (param->dirty_background_ratio) {
> > + param->dirty_background_bytes =
> > + mem * param->dirty_background_ratio / 100;
> > + param->dirty_background_ratio = 0;
> > + }
> > + if (param->dirty_background_bytes > bglimit)
> > + param->dirty_background_bytes = bglimit;
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> >
> > Index: dirty_limit_new/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- dirty_limit_new.orig/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ dirty_limit_new/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_dec_page_s
> > }
> >
> > bool mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(void);
> > -void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param);
> > +void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param, u64 mem, u64 global);
> > s64 mem_cgroup_page_stat(enum mem_cgroup_nr_pages_item item);
> >
> > unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
> > @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_has_dirty_
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param)
> > +static inline void vm_dirty_param(struct vm_dirty_param *param,
> > + u64 mem, u64 global)
> > {
> > global_vm_dirty_param(param);
> > }
> > Index: dirty_limit_new/mm/page-writeback.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- dirty_limit_new.orig/mm/page-writeback.c
> > +++ dirty_limit_new/mm/page-writeback.c
> > @@ -466,7 +466,8 @@ void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *
> > struct task_struct *tsk;
> > struct vm_dirty_param dirty_param;
> >
> > - vm_dirty_param(&dirty_param);
> > + vm_dirty_param(&dirty_param,
> > + available_memory, global_dirtyable_memory());
> >
> > if (dirty_param.dirty_bytes)
> > dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_param.dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
>
> I think there is a problem with the patch above. In the patch
> vm_dirty_param() sets param->dirty_[background_]bytes to the smallest
> limits considering the memcg and global limits. Assuming the current
> task is in a memcg, then the memcg dirty (not system-wide) usage is
> always compared to the selected limits (which may be per-memcg or
> system). The problem is that if:
> a) per-memcg dirty limit is smaller than system then vm_dirty_param()
> will select per-memcg dirty limit, and
> b) per-memcg dirty usage is well below memcg dirty limit, and
> b) system usage is at system limit
> Then the above patch will not trigger writeback. Example with two
> memcg:
> sys
> B C
>
> limit usage
> sys 10 10
> B 7 6
> C 5 4
>
> If B wants to grow, the system will exceed system limit of 10 and should
> be throttled. However, the smaller limit (7) will be selected and
> applied to memcg usage (6), which indicates no need to throttle, so the
> system could get as bad as:
>
> limit usage
> sys 10 12
> B 7 7
> C 5 5
>
> In this case the system usage exceeds the system limit because each
> the per-memcg checks see no per-memcg problems.
>
ok.
> To solve this I propose we create a new structure to aggregate both
> dirty limit and usage data:
> struct dirty_limits {
> unsigned long dirty_thresh;
> unsigned long background_thresh;
> unsigned long nr_reclaimable;
> unsigned long nr_writeback;
> };
>
> global_dirty_limits() would then query both the global and memcg limits
> and dirty usage of one that is closest to its limit. This change makes
> global_dirty_limits() look like:
>
> void global_dirty_limits(struct dirty_limits *limits)
> {
> unsigned long background;
> unsigned long dirty;
> unsigned long nr_reclaimable;
> unsigned long nr_writeback;
> unsigned long available_memory = determine_dirtyable_memory();
> struct task_struct *tsk;
>
> if (vm_dirty_bytes)
> dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> else
> dirty = (vm_dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
>
> if (dirty_background_bytes)
> background = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_background_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> else
> background = (dirty_background_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
>
> nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
>
> if (mem_cgroup_dirty_limits(available_memory, limits) &&
> dirty_available(limits->dirty_thresh, limits->nr_reclaimable,
> limits->nr_writeback) <
> dirty_available(dirty, nr_reclaimable, nr_writeback)) {
> dirty = min(dirty, limits->dirty_thresh);
> background = min(background, limits->background_thresh);
> } else {
> limits->nr_reclaimable = nr_reclaimable;
> limits->nr_writeback = nr_writeback;
> }
>
Hmm. I think it's better to add enough comments.
Or easier logic will be simple double-check.
1) calculates global-dirty-limit (always do)
If this hits global_dirty_limit, skip below.
2) if under memcg, calculate memcg-dirty-limit.
and check memcg-dirty-limit.
> if (background >= dirty)
> background = dirty / 2;
> tsk = current;
> if (tsk->flags & PF_LESS_THROTTLE || rt_task(tsk)) {
> background += background / 4;
> dirty += dirty / 4;
> }
> limits->background_thresh = background;
> limits->dirty_thresh = dirty;
> }
>
> Because this approach considered both memcg and system limits, the
> problem described above is avoided.
>
> I have this change integrated into the memcg dirty limit series (-v3 was
> the last post; v4 is almost ready with this change). I will post -v4
> with this approach is there is no strong objection.
>
Sure. Thank you.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists