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: <20150206141746.GB10580@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:17:46 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon_vma

Hello, Greg.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:03:34PM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote:
> So  this is  a system  which charges  all cgroups  using a  shared inode
> (recharge on read) for all resident pages of that shared inode.  There's
> only one copy of the page in memory on just one LRU, but the page may be
> charged to multiple container's (shared_)usage.

Yeap.

> Perhaps I missed it, but what happens when a child's limit is
> insufficient to accept all pages shared by its siblings?  Example
> starting with 2M cached of a shared file:
> 
> 	A
> 	+-B    (usage=2M lim=3M hosted_usage=2M)
> 	  +-C  (usage=0  lim=2M shared_usage=2M)
> 	  +-D  (usage=0  lim=2M shared_usage=2M)
> 	  \-E  (usage=0  lim=1M shared_usage=0)
> 
> If E faults in a new 4K page within the shared file, then E is a sharing
> participant so it'd be charged the 2M+4K, which pushes E over it's
> limit.

OOM?  It shouldn't be participating in sharing of an inode if it can't
match others' protection on the inode, I think.  What we're doing now
w/ page based charging is kinda unfair because in the situations like
above the one under pressure can end up siphoning off of the larger
cgroups' protection if they actually use overlapping areas; however,
for disjoint areas, per-page charging would behave correctly.

So, this part comes down to the same question - whether multiple
cgroups accessing disjoint areas of a single inode is an important
enough use case.  If we say yes to that, we better make writeback
support that too.

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/