linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/10] mm: memcg: fix compaction/migration failing due to memcg limits

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:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:42:03 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@...il.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] mm: memcg: fix compaction/migration failing due to
 memcg limits

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 05:10:43PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:54:07PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:02:13PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >>Compaction (and page migration in general) can currently be hindered
> >>through pages being owned by memory cgroups that are at their limits
> >>and unreclaimable.
> >>
> >>The reason is that the replacement page is being charged against the
> >>limit while the page being replaced is also still charged.  But this
> >>seems unnecessary, given that only one of the two pages will still be
> >>in use after migration finishes.
> >>
> >>This patch changes the memcg migration sequence so that the
> >>replacement page is not charged.  Whatever page is still in use after
> >>successful or failed migration gets to keep the charge of the page
> >>that was going to be replaced.
> >>
> >>The replacement page will still show up temporarily in the rss/cache
> >>statistics, this can be fixed in a later patch as it's less urgent.
> >>
> >
> >So I want to know after this patch be merged if mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move
> >still make sense, if the answer is no, I will send a patch to remove it.
> 
> And if this still make sense, I want to change check in
> mem_cgroup_do_charge:
> 
> if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit))
> 	return CHARGE_RETRY;
> 
> =>
> 
> if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit) && 
>                        mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
> 	return CHARGE_RETRY;
> 
> Since mem_cgroup_relcaim can reclaim some pages, but in
> mem_cgroup_reclaim function there are some exit condition:
> 
> total += try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, gfp_mask, noswap);
> if(total && (flag & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK))
> 	break;
> 
> and 
> 
> if (mem_cgroup_margin(memcg))
> 	break;
> 
> So maybe mem_cgroup_reclaim not reclaim enough pages >= nr_pages, this
> time we should go to mem_cgroup_handle_oom instead of return
> CHARGE_RETRY.
> 
> Hopefully, you can verify if my idea make sense.

Sorry, but this is a waste of your time, my time, and that of
everybody else in this thread.

I will ignore any subsequent proposals from you unless they start with
a coherent description of an actual problem.  Something that has
impact on userspace, or significant impact on kernel development.

If there is a bug I don't see in your description above, than please
explain how it affects userspace.  If the code or comments are cryptic
and can be simplified or clarified, please explain.
--
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/