linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/23] slub: consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create

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: <4F96B866.3090506@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:27:50 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] slub: consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create_cache

On 04/24/2012 11:03 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:57:19PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 2652e7c..86e40cc 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>>   #include<linux/prefetch.h>
>>
>>   #include<trace/events/kmem.h>
>> +#include<linux/memcontrol.h>
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Lock order:
>> @@ -3880,7 +3881,7 @@ static int slab_unmergeable(struct kmem_cache *s)
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>
>> -static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(size_t size,
>> +static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, size_t size,
>>   		size_t align, unsigned long flags, const char *name,
>>   		void (*ctor)(void *))
>>   {
>> @@ -3916,21 +3917,29 @@ static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(size_t size,
>>   		if (s->size - size>= sizeof(void *))
>>   			continue;
>>
>> +		if (memcg&&  s->memcg_params.memcg != memcg)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>
> This probably won't build without CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM ?

Probably not, thanks.

>
>>   		return s;
>>   	}
>>   	return NULL;
>>   }
>>
>> -struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size,
>> -		size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
>> +struct kmem_cache *
>> +kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
>
> Does that build without CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR ?
Yes, because MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM is dependent on RES_CTLR.

>
>> +			size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
>>   {
>>   	struct kmem_cache *s;
>>
>>   	if (WARN_ON(!name))
>>   		return NULL;
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> +	WARN_ON(memcg != NULL);
>> +#endif
>> +
>>   	down_write(&slub_lock);
>> -	s = find_mergeable(size, align, flags, name, ctor);
>> +	s = find_mergeable(memcg, size, align, flags, name, ctor);
>>   	if (s) {
>>   		s->refcount++;
>>   		/*
>> @@ -3954,12 +3963,15 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size,
>>   				size, align, flags, ctor)) {
>>   			list_add(&s->list,&slab_caches);
>>   			up_write(&slub_lock);
>> +			mem_cgroup_register_cache(memcg, s);
>
> How do you handle when the memcg cgroup gets destroyed?

I don't (yet), because - as mentioned in patch 0 - I decided to hold 
those patches until I had a better idea about how would Kame's 
pre_destroy() patches look like. I plan, however, to include it in the 
next version.

The idea is basically to mark the caches as dead (answers another 
question of yours), and wait until it runs out of objects. Talking 
specifically about the slub, that happens when free_page() frees the 
last page of the cache *and* its reference count goes down to zero 
(kmem_cache_destroy() drops the refcnt, so it will mean that cgroup 
destruction already called it)

When we have a shrinker - I don't plan to include a per-memcg shrinker 
in the first merge, because let's face it, it is a hard problem in 
itself that would be better thought separately - we can call the 
shrinkers to force the objects to die earlier.

> Also that means only one
> memcg cgroup can be accounted for a given slab cache?

Not sure if I understand your question in an ambiguity-free way.
If you mean the situation in which two tasks touch the same object, then 
yes, only one of them is accounted.

If you mean about types of cache, then no, each memcg can have it's own 
version of the whole cache array.


> What if that memcg cgroup has
> children? Hmm, perhaps this is handled in a further patch in the series, I saw a
> patch title with "children" inside :)

then the children creates caches as well, as much as the parents.

Note that because of the delayed allocation mechanism, if the parent 
serves only as a placeholder, and has no tasks inside it, then it will 
never touch - and therefore never create - any cache.
--
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/