linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:13:46 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket
 pressure

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:58:38AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:36:28PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Suppose we have the following cgroup configuration.
> > 
> > A __ B
> >   \_ C
> > 
> > A is empty (which is natural for the unified hierarchy AFAIU). B has
> > some workload running in it, and C generates socket pressure. Due to the
> > socket pressure coming from C we start reclaim in A, which results in
> > thrashing of B, but we might not put sockets under pressure in A or C,
> > because vmpressure does not account pages scanned/reclaimed in B when
> > generating a vmpressure event for A or C. This might result in
> > aggressive reclaim and thrashing in B w/o generating a signal for C to
> > stop growing socket buffers.
> > 
> > Do you think such a situation is possible? If so, would it make sense to
> > switch to post-order walk in shrink_zone and pass sub-tree
> > scanned/reclaimed stats to vmpressure for each scanned memcg?
> 
> In that case the LRU pages in C would experience pressure as well,
> which would then reign in the sockets in C. There must be some LRU
> pages in there, otherwise who is creating socket pressure?
> 
> The same applies to shrinkers. All secondary reclaim is driven by LRU
> reclaim results.
> 
> I can see that there is some unfairness in distributing memcg reclaim
> pressure purely based on LRU size, because there are scenarios where
> the auxiliary objects (incl. sockets, but mostly shrinker pools)
> amount to a significant portion of the group's memory footprint. But
> substitute group for NUMA node and we've had this behavior for
> years. I'm not sure it's actually a problem in practice.
> 

Fiar enough. Let's wait until we hit this problem in real world then.

The patch looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/