linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Task counter: cgroup core feature or cgroup subsystem? (was Re: [PATCH 0/8 v3] cgroups: Task counter subsystem)

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:	Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:40:40 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
Cc:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Task counter: cgroup core feature or cgroup subsystem?
 (was Re: [PATCH 0/8 v3] cgroups: Task counter subsystem)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:16:32AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
> <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems your patch doesn't handle the ->fork() and ->exit() calls.
> > We probably need a quick access to states of multi-subsystems from
> > the task, some lists available from task->cgroups, I don't know yet.
> >
> 
> That state is available, but currently only while holding cgroup_mutex
> - at least, that's what task_cgroup_from_root() requires.
> 
> It might be the case that we could achieve the same effect by just
> locking the task, so the pre-condition for task_cgroup_from_root()
> would be either that cgroup_mutex is held or the task lock is held.
> 
> We could extend the signature of cgroup_subsys.fork to include a
> reference to the cgroup; for the singly-bindable subsystems this would
> be trivially available via task->cgroups; for the multi-bindable
> subsystems then for each hierarchy that the subsystem is mounted on
> we'd call task_cgroup_from_root() to get the cgroup for that
> hierarchy. So multi-bindable subsystems with fork/exit callbacks would
> get called once for each mounted instance of the subsystem.
> 
> This would still make the task counter subsystem a bit painful - it
> would read_lock a global rwlock (css_set_lock) on every fork/exit in
> order to find the cgroup to charge/uncharge. I'm not sure how painful
> that would be on a big system. If that were a noticeable performance
> problem, we could have a variable-length extension on the end of
> css_set that contains a list of hierarchy_index/cgroup pairs for any
> hierarchies that had multi-bindable subsystems (or maybe for all
> hierarchies, for simplicity). This would make creating a css_set a
> little bit more complicated, but overall shouldn't be too painful, and
> would make the problem of finding a cgroup for a given hierarchy
> trivial.

Oh you're right. My first idea was to reference multi-bindable
subsystem states in cgroup_subsys_state, like it's done currently
for singletons subsystems. But this indeed require cgroup_mutex
or task_lock. And only the last one look sensible in fork/exit path.
And if that becomes a scalability problem we can still have a
dedicated lock for cgroup attach/detach on tasks.

Whatever we do, we need that lock. So we can pick your
solution that references cgroups that belong to multi-bindable
subsystems for a given task in css_set, or we can have tsk->cgroups->subsys[]
a variable size array that references 1 * singletons and N * multi
bindable subsystems, N beeing the number of hierarchies that use
a given subsystem.

What do you think?
--
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/