[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180507143358.GA3071@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 16:33:58 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, riel@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
marcos.souza.org@...il.com, hoeun.ryu@...il.com,
pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, gs051095@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg
On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > I'd vote for the change in exec_mmap(). This way mm_init_memcg() can just
> >> > nullify mm->memcg.
> >>
> >> There is at least one common path where we need the memory control group
> >> properly initialized so memory allocations don't escape the memory
> >> control group.
> >>
> >> do_execveat_common
> >> copy_strings
> >> get_arg_page
> >> get_user_pages_remote
> >> __get_user_pages_locked
> >> __get_user_pages
> >> faultin_page
> >> handle_mm_fault
> >> count_memcg_event_mm
> >> __handle_mm_fault
> >> handle_pte_fault
> >> do_anonymous_page
> >> mem_cgroup_try_charge
Ah yes, indeed.
> mm_init_memcg is at the same point as mm_init_owner. So my change did
> not introduce any logic changes on when the memory control group became
> valid.
Not sure, but perhaps I am all confused....
before your patch get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() looks at mm->owner == current
(in this case) and mem_cgroup_from_task() should return the correct memcg
even if execing task migrates after bprm_mm_init(). At least in the common
case when the old mm is not shared.
After your patch the memory allocations in copy_strings() won't be accounted
correctly, bprm->mm->memcg is wrong if this task migrates. And iiuc your recent
"[PATCH 2/2] memcg: Close the race between migration and installing bprm->mm as mm"
doesn't fix the problem.
No?
Perhaps we can change get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() to use
mem_cgroup_from_css(current, memory_cgrp_id) if mm->memcg == NULL?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists