linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

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:	Mon, 28 May 2012 01:58:48 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	dhillf@...il.com, aarcange@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hannes@...xchg.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:52:26PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> > This patch implements a memcg extension that allows us to control HugeTLB
> > allocations via memory controller. The extension allows to limit the
> > HugeTLB usage per control group and enforces the controller limit during
> > page fault. Since HugeTLB doesn't support page reclaim, enforcing the limit
> > at page fault time implies that, the application will get SIGBUS signal if it
> > tries to access HugeTLB pages beyond its limit. This requires the application
> > to know beforehand how much HugeTLB pages it would require for its use.
> > 
> > The charge/uncharge calls will be added to HugeTLB code in later patch.
> > Support for memcg removal will be added in later patches.
> > 
> 
> Again, I disagree with this approach because it's adding the functionality 
> to memcg when it's unnecessary; it would be a complete legitimate usecase 
> to want to limit the number of globally available hugepages to a set of 
> tasks without incurring the per-page tracking from memcg.
> 
> This can be implemented as a seperate cgroup and as we move to a single 
> hierarchy, you lose no functionality if you mount both cgroups from what 
> is done here.
> 
> It would be much cleaner in terms of
> 
>  - build: not requiring ifdefs and dependencies on CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE, 
>    which is a prerequisite for this functionality and is not for 
>    CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR,

I am not sure we have large number of #ifdef as you have outlined above.
Most of the hugetlb limit code is well isolated already. If we were to
split it as a seperate controller, we will be duplicating code related
cgroup deletion,  migration support etc from memcg, because in case
of memcg and hugetlb limit they depend on struct page. So I would expect
we would be end up #ifdef around that code or duplicate them in the
new controller if we were to do hugetlb limit as a seperate controller.

Another reason for it to be part of memcg is, it is normal to look
at hugetlb usage also as a memory usage. One of the feedback I got
for the earlier post is to see if i can enhace the current code to
make sure memory.usage_in_bytes can also account for hugetlb usage.
People would also like to look at memory.limit_in_bytes to limit total
usage. (inclusive of hugetlb).

> 
>  - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing 
>    mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and
> 

I can definitely look at spliting mm/memcontrol.c 


>  - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per-
>    page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb 
>    pages.
> 

-aneesh

--
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/