linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] memcg: schedule high reclaim for remote memcgs on high

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:59:48 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] memcg: schedule high reclaim for remote memcgs on
 high_work

Hi Shakeel,

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:44:32AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> If a memcg is over high limit, memory reclaim is scheduled to run on
> return-to-userland.  However it is assumed that the memcg is the current
> process's memcg.  With remote memcg charging for kmem or swapping in a
> page charged to remote memcg, current process can trigger reclaim on
> remote memcg.  So, schduling reclaim on return-to-userland for remote
> memcgs will ignore the high reclaim altogether. So, record the memcg
> needing high reclaim and trigger high reclaim for that memcg on
> return-to-userland.  However if the memcg is already recorded for high
> reclaim and the recorded memcg is not the descendant of the the memcg
> needing high reclaim, punt the high reclaim to the work queue.

The idea behind remote charging is that the thread allocating the
memory is not responsible for that memory, but a different cgroup
is. Why would the same thread then have to work off any high excess
this could produce in that unrelated group?

Say you have a inotify/dnotify listener that is restricted in its
memory use - now everybody sending notification events from outside
that listener's group would get throttled on a cgroup over which it
has no control. That sounds like a recipe for priority inversions.

It seems to me we should only do reclaim-on-return when current is in
the ill-behaved cgroup, and punt everything else - interrupts and
remote charges - to the workqueue.