linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/14] memcg: kmem controller 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: <5077DF20.7020200@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:13:04 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"Greg Thelen" <gthelen@...gle.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

On 10/12/2012 12:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-10-12 12:44:57, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 12:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 12-10-12 11:45:46, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2012 04:42 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon 08-10-12 14:06:12, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>> +	 * Conditions under which we can wait for the oom_killer.
>>>>>> +	 * __GFP_NORETRY should be masked by __mem_cgroup_try_charge,
>>>>>> +	 * but there is no harm in being explicit here
>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>> +	may_oom = (gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY);
>>>>>
>>>>> Well we _have to_ check __GFP_NORETRY here because if we don't then we
>>>>> can end up in OOM. mem_cgroup_do_charge returns CHARGE_NOMEM for
>>>>> __GFP_NORETRY (without doing any reclaim) and of oom==true we decrement
>>>>> oom retries counter and eventually hit OOM killer. So the comment is
>>>>> misleading.
>>>>
>>>> I will update. What i understood from your last message is that we don't
>>>> really need to, because try_charge will do it.
>>>
>>> IIRC I just said it couldn't happen before because migration doesn't go
>>> through charge and thp disable oom by default.
>>>
>>
>> I had it changed to:
>>
>>         /*
>>          * Conditions under which we can wait for the oom_killer.
>>          * We have to be able to wait, but also, if we can't retry,
>>          * we obviously shouldn't go mess with oom.
>>          */
>>         may_oom = (gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY);
> 
> OK
> 
>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	_memcg = memcg;
>>>>>> +	ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, size >> PAGE_SHIFT,
>>>>>> +				      &_memcg, may_oom);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!ret) {
>>>>>> +		ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->kmem, size, &fail_res);
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I'm thinking about the charging ordering we should charge the
>>>>> kmem first because we would like to hit kmem limit before we hit u+k
>>>>> limit, don't we. 
>>>>> Say that you have kmem limit 10M and the total limit 50M. Current `u'
>>>>> would be 40M and this charge would cause kmem to hit the `k' limit. I
>>>>> think we should fail to charge kmem before we go to u+k and potentially
>>>>> reclaim/oom.
>>>>> Or has this been alredy discussed and I just do not remember?
>>>>>
>>>> This has never been discussed as far as I remember. We charged u first
>>>> since day0, and you are so far the first one to raise it...
>>>>
>>>> One of the things in favor of charging 'u' first is that
>>>> mem_cgroup_try_charge is already equipped to make a lot of decisions,
>>>> like when to allow reclaim, when to bypass charges, and it would be good
>>>> if we can reuse all that.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I think that we should prevent from those decisions if kmem charge
>>> would fail anyway (especially now when we do not have targeted slab
>>> reclaim).
>>>
>>
>> Let's revisit this discussion when we do have targeted reclaim. For now,
>> I'll agree that charging kmem first would be acceptable.
>>
>> This will only make a difference when K < U anyway.
> 
> Yes and it should work as advertised (aka hit the k limit first).
> 
Just so we don't ping-pong in another submission:

I changed memcontrol.h's memcg_kmem_newpage_charge to include:

        /* If the test is dying, just let it go. */
        if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)
                     || fatal_signal_pending(current)))
                return true;


I'm also attaching the proposed code in memcontrol.c


View attachment "chch.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1701 bytes)