linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] memcg/sl[au]b: shrink dead caches

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: <505C27E4.90509@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:40:04 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] memcg/sl[au]b: shrink dead caches

On 09/21/2012 08:48 AM, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> Hi Glauber.
> 
Hi

> 2012/9/18 Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>:
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 0b68d15..9d79216 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -2602,6 +2602,7 @@ redo:
>>         } else
>>                 __slab_free(s, page, x, addr);
>>
>> +       kmem_cache_verify_dead(s);
>>  }
> 
> As far as u know, I am not a expert and don't know anything about memcg.
> IMHO, this implementation may hurt system performance in some case.
> 
> In case of memcg is destoried, remained kmem_cache is marked "dead".
> After it is marked,
> every free operation to this "dead" kmem_cache call
> kmem_cache_verify_dead() and finally call kmem_cache_shrink().

As long as it is restricted to that cache, this is a non issue.
dead caches are exactly what they name imply: dead.

Means that we actively want them to go away, and just don't kill them
right away because they have some inflight objects - which we expect not
to be too much.

> kmem_cache_shrink() do invoking kmalloc and flush_all() and taking a
> lock for online node and invoking kfree.
> Especially, flush_all() may hurt performance largely, because it call
> has_cpu_slab() against all the cpus.

Again, this is all right, but being a dead cache, it shouldn't be on any
hot path.

> 
> And, I found one case that destroying memcg's kmem_cache don't works properly.
> If we destroy memcg after all object is freed, current implementation
> doesn't destroy kmem_cache.
> kmem_cache_destroy_work_func() check "cachep->memcg_params.nr_pages == 0",
> but in this case, it return false, because kmem_cache may have
> cpu_slab, and cpu_partials_slabs.
> As we already free all objects, kmem_cache_verify_dead() is not invoked forever.
> I think that we need another kmem_cache_shrink() in
> kmem_cache_destroy_work_func().

I'll take a look here. What you describe makes sense, and can
potentially happen. I tried to handle this case with care in
destroy_all_caches, but I may have always made a mistake...

Did you see this actively happening, or are you just assuming this can
happen from your read of the code?
--
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/