linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: make mem_cgroup_read

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: <xr936131mwhu.fsf@gthelen.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:21:33 -0700
From:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm\@kvack.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: make mem_cgroup_read_stat() unsigned


Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:42:13 -0700 Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:16:32 -0700 Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> mem_cgroup_read_stat() returns a page count by summing per cpu page
>> >> counters.  The summing is racy wrt. updates, so a transient negative sum
>> >> is possible.  Callers don't want negative values:
>> >> - mem_cgroup_wb_stats() doesn't want negative nr_dirty or nr_writeback.
>> >> - oom reports and memory.stat shouldn't show confusing negative usage.
>> >> - tree_usage() already avoids negatives.
>> >>
>> >> Avoid returning negative page counts from mem_cgroup_read_stat() and
>> >> convert it to unsigned.
>> >
>> > Someone please remind me why this code doesn't use the existing
>> > percpu_counter library which solved this problem years ago.
>> >
>> >>   for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>> >
>> > and which doesn't iterate across offlined CPUs.
>> 
>> I found [1] and [2] discussing memory layout differences between:
>> a) existing memcg hand rolled per cpu arrays of counters
>> vs
>> b) array of generic percpu_counter
>> The current approach was claimed to have lower memory overhead and
>> better cache behavior.
>> 
>> I assume it's pretty straightforward to create generic
>> percpu_counter_array routines which memcg could use.  Possibly something
>> like this could be made general enough could be created to satisfy
>> vmstat, but less clear.
>> 
>> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cgroups/msg06216.html
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/11/1057
>
> That all sounds rather bogus to me.  __percpu_counter_add() doesn't
> modify struct percpu_counter at all except for when the cpu-local
> counter overflows the configured batch size.  And for the memcg
> application I suspect we can set the batch size to INT_MAX...

Nod.  The memory usage will be a bit larger, but the code reuse is
attractive.  I dusted off Vladimir's
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/11/710.  Next step is to benchmark it
before posting.
--
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/