linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: memcg: remote memcg charging for kmem allocations

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: <CALvZod7eq3WnMU8dzA+9CmbOuf-peaCyhLuMRW2n_VyOPqjZ7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:31:18 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: memcg: remote memcg charging for kmem allocations

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:13:25PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > @@ -248,6 +248,30 @@ static inline void memalloc_noreclaim_restore(unsigned int flags)
> >       current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC) | flags;
> >  }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > +static inline struct mem_cgroup *memalloc_memcg_save(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > +     struct mem_cgroup *old_memcg = current->target_memcg;
> > +
> > +     current->target_memcg = memcg;
> > +     return old_memcg;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void memalloc_memcg_restore(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > +     current->target_memcg = memcg;
> > +}
>
> The use_mm() and friends naming scheme would be better here:
> memalloc_use_memcg(), memalloc_unuse_memcg(), current->active_memcg
>

Ack. Though do you still think <linux/sched/mm.h> is the right place
for these functions?

> > @@ -375,6 +376,27 @@ static __always_inline void kfree_bulk(size_t size, void **p)
> >       kmem_cache_free_bulk(NULL, size, p);
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Calling kmem_cache_alloc_memcg implicitly assumes that the caller wants
> > + * a __GFP_ACCOUNT allocation. However if memcg is NULL then
> > + * kmem_cache_alloc_memcg is same as kmem_cache_alloc.
> > + */
> > +static __always_inline void *kmem_cache_alloc_memcg(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> > +                                                 gfp_t flags,
> > +                                                 struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > +     struct mem_cgroup *old_memcg;
> > +     void *ptr;
> > +
> > +     if (!memcg)
> > +             return kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, flags);
> > +
> > +     old_memcg = memalloc_memcg_save(memcg);
> > +     ptr = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, flags | __GFP_ACCOUNT);
> > +     memalloc_memcg_restore(old_memcg);
> > +     return ptr;
>
> I'm not a big fan of these functions as an interface because it
> implies that kmem_cache_alloc() et al wouldn't charge a memcg - but
> they do, just using current's memcg.
>
> It's also a lot of churn to duplicate all the various slab functions.
>
> Can you please inline the save/restore (or use/unuse) functions into
> the callsites? If you make them handle NULL as parameters, it merely
> adds two bracketing lines around the allocation call in the callsites,
> which I think would be better to understand - in particular with a
> comment on why we are charging *that* group instead of current's.
>

Ack.

> > +static __always_inline struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup(
> > +                             struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +     if (unlikely(memcg)) {
> > +             rcu_read_lock();
> > +             if (css_tryget_online(&memcg->css)) {
> > +                     rcu_read_unlock();
> > +                     return memcg;
> > +             }
> > +             rcu_read_unlock();
> > +     }
> > +     return get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * mem_cgroup_iter - iterate over memory cgroup hierarchy
> >   * @root: hierarchy root
> > @@ -2260,7 +2274,7 @@ struct kmem_cache *memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >       if (current->memcg_kmem_skip_account)
> >               return cachep;
> >
> > -     memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(current->mm);
> > +     memcg = get_mem_cgroup(current->target_memcg, current->mm);
>
> get_mem_cgroup_from_current(), which uses current->active_memcg if set
> and current->mm->memcg otherwise, would be a nicer abstraction IMO.

Ack.

thanks,
Shakeel