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: <20150922210346.749204fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:03:46 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
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

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...


--
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/