linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: implement low 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]

Message-Id: <61661362049995@webcorp1g.yandex-team.ru>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:13:15 +0400
From:	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner-Arquette <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	"kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"mel@....ul.ie" <mel@....ul.ie>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: implement low limits

27.02.2013, 20:14, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.cz>:
> On Wed 27-02-13 14:39:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
>>  27.02.2013, 13:41, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.cz>:
>>>  Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the private
>>>  communication.
>>>
>>>  We already have soft limit which can be implemented to achieve the
>>>  same/similar functionality and in fact this is a long term objective (at
>>>  least for me). I hope I will be able to post my code soon. The last post
>>>  by Ying Hand (cc-ing her) was here:
>>>  http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/83499
>>>
>>>  To be honest I do not like introduction of a new limit because we have
>>>  two already and the situation would get over complicated.
>>  I think, there are three different tasks:
>>  1) keeping cgroups below theirs hard limit to avoid direct reclaim
>>  (for performance reasons),
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by this, please? There is no background
> reclaim for memcgs currently and I am a bit skeptical whether it is
> useful. If it would be useful then it should be in par with the global
> reclaim (so something like min_free_kbytes would be more appropriate).

I mean, that it's a good idea to keep memory usage of any cgroup a little bit 
under it's hard limit to avoid direct reclaim. There is no good mechanism yet,
but it can be developed later.

>>  2) cgroup's prioritization during global reclaim,
>
> Yes, group priorities sound like a useful feature not just for the
> reclaim I would like it for oom selection as well.
> I think that we shouldn't use any kind of limit for this task, though.

I'm thinking about them. Do you know, did someone any attempts to implement them?
I have an idea how to implement them (and also implementing (fast) strict lower limits limits).
I'll try to post my version soon.

>>  3) granting some amount of memory to a selected cgroup (and protecting
>>  it from reclaim without significant reasons)
>
> and soft limit sounds like a good fit with this description.
>
>>  IMHO, combining them all in one limit will simplify a kernel code,
>>  but will also make a user's (or administrator's) life much more
>>  complicated.
>
> I do not think all 3 tasks you have described can be covered by a single
> limit of course. We have hard limit to cap the usage, we have a soft
> limit to allow over-committing the machine. Task 2 would require a new
> knob but it shouldn't be covered by any limit or depend on the group
> usage. And task 1 sounds like a background reclaim and then it should be
> consistent with the global knob.
>
>>  Introducing low limits can make the situation simpler.
>
> How exactly? I can see how it would address task 3 but yet again, soft
> limit can be turned into this behavior as well without changing its
> semantic (that limit would be still considered if we are able to handle
> memory pressure from the above - either global pressure or parent
> hitting the limit).

Actually, I don't like the name of soft limits - the word "soft". It's not clear from
the name if it's lower or upper limit. It's a little bit confusing that "limit" 
means upper limit, and "soft limit" means lower limit.

Assuming it's possible to implement strict lower limit efficiently, how do you call them?

Thank you!

--
Regards, 
Roman
--
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/