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: <20150211073227.GB30939@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:27 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	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 Tejun,

On Tue 10-02-15 21:19:06, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:38:39AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > If we can argue that memcg and blkcg having different views is
> > meaningful and characterize and justify the behaviors stemming from
> > the deviation, sure, that'd be fine, but I don't think we have that as
> > of now.
...
> So, based on the assumption that write sharings are mostly incidental
> and temporary (ie. we're basically declaring that we don't support
> persistent write sharing), how about something like the following?
> 
> 1. memcg contiues per-page tracking.
> 
> 2. Each inode is associated with a single blkcg at a given time and
>    written out by that blkcg.
> 
> 3. While writing back, if the number of pages from foreign memcg's is
>    higher than certain ratio of total written pages, the inode is
>    marked as disowned and the writeback instance is optionally
>    terminated early.  e.g. if the ratio of foreign pages is over 50%
>    after writing out the number of pages matching 5s worth of write
>    bandwidth for the bdi, mark the inode as disowned.
> 
> 4. On the following dirtying of the inode, the inode is associated
>    with the matching blkcg of the dirtied page.  Note that this could
>    be the next cycle as the inode could already have been marked dirty
>    by the time the above condition triggered.  In that case, the
>    following writeback would be terminated early too.
> 
> This should provide sufficient corrective pressure so that incidental
> and temporary sharing of an inode doesn't become a persistent issue
> while keeping the complexity necessary for implementing such pressure
> fairly minimal and self-contained.  Also, the changes necessary for
> individual filesystems would be minimal.
  I like this proposal. It looks simple enough and when inodes aren't
pernamently write-shared it converges to the blkcg that is currently
writing to the inode. So ack from me.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/