Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:24:53 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg

(2012/06/07 23:00), Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:53:07PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 02:26 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
>>>> all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
>>>> 2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
>>>> fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
>>>>
>>>> I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
>>>> I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
>>>> please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
>>>> and I'll rebase it.
>>>>
>>>> I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
>>>> are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
>>>> until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
>>>> the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
>>>>
>>>> I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
>>>> of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
>>>> the work allows to.
>>>
>>> So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
>>> I need to work on top of your patchset.
>>>
>>> What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
>>> For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.
>>>
>>> Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
>>> (as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
>>> kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
>>> done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
>>> on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.
>>>
>>> The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
>>> kind of finegrained kmem accounting.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I believe a general separation is too much, and will lead to knob
>> explosion. So I don't think it is a good idea.
>
> Right. This could be an option in kmem_cache_create() or something.
>
>>
>> Now, for the stack itself, it can be justified. The question that
>> remains to be answered is:
>>
>> Why do you need to set the stack value separately? Isn't accounting
>> the stack value, and limiting against the global kmem limit enough?
>
> Well, I may want to let my container have a full access to some kmem
> resources (net, file, etc...) but defend against fork bombs or NR_PROC
> rlimit exhaustion of other containers.
>
> So I need to be able to set my limit precisely on kstack.

You explained that the limitation is necessary for fork-bomb, and the bad
point of fork-bomb is that it can cause OOM. So, the problem is OOM not fork-bomb.

If the problem is OOM, IIUC, generic kernel memory limiting will work better than
kernel stack limiting.

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists