linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon

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: <20150130160722.GA26111@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:07:22 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, hughd@...gle.com,
	Konstantin Khebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon_vma

Hey, again.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:27:37AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The previous behavior was pretty unpredictable in terms of shared file
> ownership too.  I wonder whether the better thing to do here is either
> charging cases like this to the common ancestor or splitting the
> charge equally among the accessors, which might be doable for ro
> files.

I've been thinking more about this.  It's true that doing per-page
association allows for avoiding confronting the worst side effects of
inode sharing head-on, but it is a tradeoff with fairly weak
justfications.  The only thing we're gaining is side-stepping the
blunt of the problem in an awkward manner and the loss of clarity in
taking this compromised position has nasty ramifications when we try
to connect it with the rest of the world.

I could be missing something major but the more I think about it, it
looks to me that the right thing to do here is accounting per-inode
and charging shared inodes to the nearest common ancestor.  The
resulting behavior would be way more logical and predicatable than the
current one, which would make it straight forward to integrate memcg
with blkcg and writeback.

One of the problems that I can think of off the top of my head is that
it'd involve more regular use of charge moving; however, this is an
operation which is per-inode rather than per-page and still gonna be
fairly infrequent.  Another one is that if we move memcg over to this
behavior, it's likely to affect the behavior on the traditional
hierarchies too as we sure as hell don't want to switch between the
two major behaviors dynamically but given that behaviors on inode
sharing aren't very well supported yet, this can be an acceptable
change.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/