linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] memory cgroup: my thoughts on memsw

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: <20140910120157.GA13796@esperanza>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:01:57 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...allels.com>,
	LKML-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML-cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] memory cgroup: my thoughts on memsw

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:53:48PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2014/09/08 20:01), Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 08:15:44AM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> >>As you noticed, hitting anon+swap limit just means oom-kill.
> >>My point is that using oom-killer for "server management" just seems crazy.
> >>
> >>Let my clarify things. your proposal was.
> >>  1. soft-limit will be a main feature for server management.
> >>  2. Because of soft-limit, global memory reclaim runs.
> >>  3. Using swap at global memory reclaim can cause poor performance.
> >>  4. So, making use of OOM-Killer for avoiding swap.
> >>
> >>I can't agree "4". I think
> >>
> >>  - don't configure swap.
> >
> >Suppose there are two containers, each having soft limit set to 50% of
> >total system RAM. One of the containers eats 90% of the system RAM by
> >allocating anonymous pages. Another starts using file caches and wants
> >more than 10% of RAM to work w/o issuing disk reads. So what should we
> >do then?
> >We won't be able to shrink the first container to its soft
> >limit, because there's no swap. Leaving it as is would be unfair from
> >the second container's point of view. Kill it? But the whole system is
> >going OK, because the working set of the second container is easily
> >shrinkable. Besides there may be some progress in shrinking file caches
> >from the first container.
> >
> >>  - use zram
> >
> >In fact this isn't different from the previous proposal (working w/o
> >swap). ZRAM only compresses data while still storing them in RAM so we
> >eventually may get into a situation where almost all RAM is full of
> >compressed anon pages.
> >
> 
> In above 2 cases, "vmpressure" works fine.

What if a container allocates memory so fast that the userspace thread
handling its threshold notifications won't have time to react before it
eats all memory?

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/