linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/23] kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure

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: <4F980D90.8050109@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:43:28 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <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 17/23] kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure

On 04/24/2012 07:54 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>>> Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that
>>> process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's
>>> no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different
>>> memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs.  This is
>>> consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread
>>> mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well.
>>
>> But that's the problem.
>>
>> When we are dealing with kernel memory, we are allocating a whole slab page.
>> It is essentially impossible to track, given a page, which task allocated
>> which object.
>>
>
> Right, so you have to make the distinction that slab charges cannot be
> migrated by memory.move_charge_at_immigrate (and it's not even specified
> to do anything beyond user pages in Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt),

Never intended to.

> but
> it would be consistent to charge the same memcg for a process's slab
> allocations as the process's user allocations.
>
> My response was why we shouldn't be charging user pages to
> mem_cgroup_from_task(current) rather than
> mem_cgroup_from_task(current->mm->owner) which is what is currently
> implemented.

Ah, all right. Well, for user memory I agree with you. My point was 
exactly that user memory can always be pinpointed to a specific address 
space, while kernel memory can't.

>
> If that can't be changed so that we can still migrate user memory amongst
> memcgs for memory.move_charge_at_immigrate, then it seems consistent to
> have all allocations done by a task to be charged to the same memcg.
> Hence, I suggested current->mm->owner for slab charging as well.

All right. This can be done. Although I don't see this as a must for 
slab as already explained, I certainly don't oppose doing so as well.
--
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/