linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove KMEM_ACCOUNTED

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: <529CDDB3.3090301@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:21:23 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED

On 12/02/2013 10:26 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>> [CCing Glauber - please do so in other posts for kmem related changes]
>>
>> On Mon 02-12-13 17:08:13, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>> The KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED was introduced by commit a8964b9b ("memcg:
>>> use static branches when code not in use") in order to guarantee that
>>> static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key) will be called only once
>>> for each memory cgroup when its kmem limit is set. The point is that at
>>> that time the memcg_update_kmem_limit() function's workflow looked like
>>> this:
>>>
>>>        bool must_inc_static_branch = false;
>>>
>>>        cgroup_lock();
>>>        mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
>>>        if (!memcg->kmem_account_flags && val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
>>>                /* The kmem limit is set for the first time */
>>>                ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
>>>
>>>                memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
>>>                must_inc_static_branch = true;
>>>        } else
>>>                ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
>>>        mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
>>>        cgroup_unlock();
>>>
>>>        if (must_inc_static_branch) {
>>>                /* We can't do this under cgroup_lock */
>>>                static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key);
>>>                memcg_kmem_set_active(memcg);
>>>        }
>>>
>>> Today, we don't use cgroup_lock in memcg_update_kmem_limit(), and
>>> static_key_slow_inc() is called under the set_limit_mutex, but the
>>> leftover from the above-mentioned commit is still here. Let's remove it.
>> OK, so I have looked there again and 692e89abd154b (memcg: increment
>> static branch right after limit set) which went in after cgroup_mutex
>> has been removed. It came along with the following comment.
>>                  /*
>>                   * setting the active bit after the inc will guarantee no one
>>                   * starts accounting before all call sites are patched
>>                   */
>>
>> This suggests that the flag is needed after all because we have
>> to be sure that _all_ the places have to be patched. AFAIU
>> memcg_kmem_newpage_charge might see the static key already patched so
>> it would do a charge but memcg_kmem_commit_charge would still see it
>> unpatched and so the charge won't be committed.
>>
>> Or am I missing something?
> You are correct. This flag is there due to the way we are using static branches.
> The patching of one call site is atomic, but the patching of all of
> them are not.
> Therefore we need to use a two-flag scheme to guarantee that in the first time
> we turn the static branches on, there will be a clear point after
> which we're going
> to start accounting.

Hi, Glauber

Sorry, but I don't understand why we need two flags. Isn't checking the 
flag set after all call sites have been patched (I mean 
KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE) not enough?
--
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/