linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim and OOM kill when shrinking memory.max below usage

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160317082345.GF18142@esperanza>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:23:45 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim and OOM kill when shrinking
 memory.max below usage

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:13:29PM -0700, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 06:15:09PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:18:48PM -0700, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:19:31PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Come to think of it, shouldn't we restore the old limit and return EBUSY
> > > > if we failed to reclaim enough memory?
> > > 
> > > I suspect it's very rare that it would fail. But even in that case
> > > it's probably better to at least not allow new charges past what the
> > > user requested, even if we can't push the level back far enough.
> > 
> > It's of course good to set the limit before trying to reclaim memory,
> > but isn't it strange that even if the cgroup's memory can't be reclaimed
> > to meet the new limit (tmpfs files or tasks protected from oom), the
> > write will still succeed? It's a rare use case, but still.
> 
> It's not optimal, but there is nothing we can do about it, is there? I
> don't want to go back to the racy semantics that allow the application
> to balloon up again after the limit restriction fails.
> 
> > I've one more concern regarding this patch. It's about calling OOM while
> > reclaiming cgroup memory. AFAIU OOM killer can be quite disruptive for a
> > workload, so is it really good to call it when normal reclaim fails?
> > 
> > W/o OOM killer you can optimistically try to adjust memory.max and if it
> > fails you can manually kill some processes in the container or restart
> > it or cancel the limit update. With your patch adjusting memory.max
> > never fails, but OOM might kill vital processes rendering the whole
> > container useless. Wouldn't it be better to let the user decide if
> > processes should be killed or not rather than calling OOM forcefully?
> 
> Those are the memory.max semantics, though. Why should there be a
> difference between the container growing beyond the limit and the
> limit cutting into the container?
> 
> If you don't want OOM kills, set memory.high instead. This way you get
> the memory pressure *and* the chance to do your own killing.

Fair enough.

Thanks,
Vladimir