linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/23] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.

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: <4F97507A.60204@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:42 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC:	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...eBSD.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/23] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.

(2012/04/21 6:57), Glauber Costa wrote:

> From: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...eBSD.org>
> 
> mem_cgroup_do_charge() was written before slab accounting, and expects
> three cases: being called for 1 page, being called for a stock of 32 pages,
> or being called for a hugepage.  If we call for 2 pages (and several slabs
> used in process creation are such, at least with the debug options I had),
> it assumed it's being called for stock and just retried without reclaiming.
> 
> Fix that by passing down a minsize argument in addition to the csize.
> 
> And what to do about that (csize == PAGE_SIZE && ret) retry?  If it's
> needed at all (and presumably is since it's there, perhaps to handle
> races), then it should be extended to more than PAGE_SIZE, yet how far?


IIRC, it was for preventing rapid OOM kill and reducing latency.

> And should there be a retry count limit, of what?  For now retry up to
> COSTLY_ORDER (as page_alloc.c does), stay safe with a cond_resched(),
> and make sure not to do it if __GFP_NORETRY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>


Hmm, maybe ok.

Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>


> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c |   18 +++++++++++-------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 4b94b2d..cbffc4c 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2187,7 +2187,8 @@ enum {
>  };
>  
>  static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> -				unsigned int nr_pages, bool oom_check)
> +				unsigned int nr_pages, unsigned int min_pages,
> +				bool oom_check)
>  {
>  	unsigned long csize = nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
>  	struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit;
> @@ -2210,18 +2211,18 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  	} else
>  		mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res);
>  	/*
> -	 * nr_pages can be either a huge page (HPAGE_PMD_NR), a batch
> -	 * of regular pages (CHARGE_BATCH), or a single regular page (1).
> -	 *
>  	 * Never reclaim on behalf of optional batching, retry with a
>  	 * single page instead.
>  	 */
> -	if (nr_pages == CHARGE_BATCH)
> +	if (nr_pages > min_pages)
>  		return CHARGE_RETRY;
>  
>  	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT))
>  		return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK;
>  
> +	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> +		return CHARGE_NOMEM;
> +
>  	ret = mem_cgroup_reclaim(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, flags);
>  	if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
>  		return CHARGE_RETRY;
> @@ -2234,8 +2235,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  	 * unlikely to succeed so close to the limit, and we fall back
>  	 * to regular pages anyway in case of failure.
>  	 */
> -	if (nr_pages == 1 && ret)
> +	if (nr_pages <= (PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) && ret) {
> +		cond_resched();
>  		return CHARGE_RETRY;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * At task move, charge accounts can be doubly counted. So, it's
> @@ -2369,7 +2372,8 @@ again:
>  			nr_oom_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
>  		}
>  
> -		ret = mem_cgroup_do_charge(memcg, gfp_mask, batch, oom_check);
> +		ret = mem_cgroup_do_charge(memcg, gfp_mask, batch, nr_pages,
> +		    oom_check);
>  		switch (ret) {
>  		case CHARGE_OK:
>  			break;



--
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/