linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/auto_group: fix consume memory even if add 'noautogroup' in the cmdline

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:02:56 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/auto_group: fix consume memory even if add
 'noautogroup' in the cmdline

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 13:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: 
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 06:22:31PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > We have a server which have 200 CPUs and 8G memory, there is auto_group creation 
> 
> I'm hoping that is 8T, otherwise that's a severely under provisioned
> system, that's a mere 40M per cpu, does that even work?
> 
> > which will almost consume 12MB memory even if add 'noautogroup' in the kernel 
> > boot parameter. In addtion, SLUB per cpu partial caches freeing that is local to 
> > a processor which requires the taking of locks at the price of more indeterminism 
> > in the latency of the free. This patch fix it by check noautogroup earlier to avoid 
> > free after unnecessary memory consumption.
> 
> That's just a bad changelog. It fails to explain the actual problem and
> it babbles about unrelated things like SLUB details.
> 
> Also, I'm not entirely sure what the intention was of this code, I've so
> far tried to ignore the entire autogroup fest... 
> 
> It looks like it creates and maintains the entire autogroup hierarchy,
> such that if you at runtime enable the sysclt and move tasks 'back' to
> the root cgroup you get the autogroup behaviour.
> 
> Was this intended? Mike?

Yeah, it was intended that autogroups always exist if you config it in.
We could make is such that noautogroup makes it irreversibly off/dead.  

People with 200 ram starved CPUs can turn it off in their .config too :)

-Mike

--
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/