linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] smaps: fill missing fields for vma(VM

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: <20150811233237.GA32192@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:32:38 +0000
From:	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] smaps: fill missing fields for vma(VM_HUGETLB)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 05:37:54PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> 
> > Currently smaps reports many zero fields for vma(VM_HUGETLB), which is
> > inconvenient when we want to know per-task or per-vma base hugetlb usage.
> > This patch enables these fields by introducing smaps_hugetlb_range().
> > 
> > before patch:
> > 
> >   Size:              20480 kB
> >   Rss:                   0 kB
> >   Pss:                   0 kB
> >   Shared_Clean:          0 kB
> >   Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
> >   Private_Clean:         0 kB
> >   Private_Dirty:         0 kB
> >   Referenced:            0 kB
> >   Anonymous:             0 kB
> >   AnonHugePages:         0 kB
> >   Swap:                  0 kB
> >   KernelPageSize:     2048 kB
> >   MMUPageSize:        2048 kB
> >   Locked:                0 kB
> >   VmFlags: rd wr mr mw me de ht
> > 
> > after patch:
> > 
> >   Size:              20480 kB
> >   Rss:               18432 kB
> >   Pss:               18432 kB
> >   Shared_Clean:          0 kB
> >   Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
> >   Private_Clean:         0 kB
> >   Private_Dirty:     18432 kB
> >   Referenced:        18432 kB
> >   Anonymous:         18432 kB
> >   AnonHugePages:         0 kB
> >   Swap:                  0 kB
> >   KernelPageSize:     2048 kB
> >   MMUPageSize:        2048 kB
> >   Locked:                0 kB
> >   VmFlags: rd wr mr mw me de ht
> > 
> 
> I think this will lead to breakage, unfortunately, specifically for users 
> who are concerned with resource management.
> 
> An example: we use memcg hierarchies to charge memory for individual jobs, 
> specific users, and system overhead.  Memcg is a cgroup, so this is done 
> for an aggregate of processes, and we often have to monitor their memory 
> usage.  Each process isn't assigned to its own memcg, and I don't believe 
> common users of memcg assign individual processes to their own memcgs.  
> 
> When a memcg is out of memory, we need to track the memory usage of 
> processes attached to its memcg hierarchy to determine what is unexpected, 
> either as a result of a new rollout or because of a memory leak.  To do 
> that, we use the rss exported by smaps that is now changed with this 
> patch.  By using smaps rather than /proc/pid/status, we can report where 
> memory usage is unexpected.
> 
> This would cause our process that manages all memcgs on our systems to 
> break.  Perhaps I haven't been as convincing in my previous messages of 
> this, but it's quite an obvious userspace regression.

OK, this version assumes that userspace distinguishes vma(VM_HUGETLB) with
"VmFlags" field, which is unrealistic. So I'll keep all existing fields
untouched by introducing hugetlb usage info.

> This memory was not included in rss originally because memory in the 
> hugetlb persistent pool is always resident.  Unmapping the memory does not 
> free memory.  For this reason, hugetlb memory has always been treated as 
> its own type of memory.

Right, so it might be better not to use the word "RSS" for hugetlb, maybe
something like "HugetlbPages:" seems better to me.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi

> It would have been arguable back when hugetlbfs was introduced whether it 
> should be included.  I'm afraid the ship has sailed on that since a decade 
> has past and it would cause userspace to break if existing metrics are 
> used that already have cleared defined semantics.