linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cpuset: decouple cpuset locking from cgroup core

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:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:33:53 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lizefan@...wei.com, paul@...lmenage.org,
	glommer@...allels.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	bsingharora@...il.com, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cpuset: decouple cpuset locking from
 cgroup core

On Fri 30-11-12 12:21:32, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/11/29 6:34), Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, guys.
> > 
> > Depending on cgroup core locking - cgroup_mutex - is messy and makes
> > cgroup prone to locking dependency problems.  The current code already
> > has lock dependency loop - memcg nests get_online_cpus() inside
> > cgroup_mutex.  cpuset the other way around.
> > 
> > Regardless of the locking details, whatever is protecting cgroup has
> > inherently to be something outer to most other locking constructs.
> > cgroup calls into a lot of major subsystems which in turn have to
> > perform subsystem-specific locking.  Trying to nest cgroup
> > synchronization inside other locks isn't something which can work
> > well.
> > 
> > cgroup now has enough API to allow subsystems to implement their own
> > locking and cgroup_mutex is scheduled to be made private to cgroup
> > core.  This patchset makes cpuset implement its own locking instead of
> > relying on cgroup_mutex.
> > 
> > cpuset is rather nasty in this respect.  Some of it seems to have come
> > from the implementation history - cgroup core grew out of cpuset - but
> > big part stems from cpuset's need to migrate tasks to an ancestor
> > cgroup when an hotunplug event makes a cpuset empty (w/o any cpu or
> > memory).
> > 
> > This patchset decouples cpuset locking from cgroup_mutex.  After the
> > patchset, cpuset uses cpuset-specific cpuset_mutex instead of
> > cgroup_mutex.  This also removes the lockdep warning triggered during
> > cpu offlining (see 0009).
> > 
> > Note that this leaves memcg as the only external user of cgroup_mutex.
> > Michal, Kame, can you guys please convert memcg to use its own locking
> > too?
> > 
> 
> Hmm. let me see....at quick glance cgroup_lock() is used at
>   hierarchy policy change
>   kmem_limit
>   migration policy change
>   swapiness change
>   oom control
> 
> Because all aboves takes care of changes in hierarchy,
> Having a new memcg's mutex in ->create() may be a way.
> 
> Ah, hm, Costa is mentioning task-attach. is the task-attach problem in
> memcg ?

Yes because we do not want to leak charges if we race with one of the
above hierarchy operation. Swappiness and oom control are not a big
deal. Same applies to migration policy change.
Those could be solved by using the same memcg lock in the attach hook.
Hierarchy policy change would be a bigger issue because the task is
already linked to the group when the callback is called. Same applies to
kmem_limit. Sorry I didn't have time to look into this deeper so I
cannot offer any solution right now.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/