Message-ID: <CALvZod65jCCH+fHqAQwk0RTZhyhxG71F-sHE7qxrmZ_L1tDbvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:46:04 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Thomas Lindroth <thomas.lindroth@...il.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, kmem: do not fail __GFP_NOFAIL charges

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed 11-09-19 07:37:40, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:00:02 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon 09-09-19 13:22:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Fri 06-09-19 11:24:55, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > I wonder what has changed since
> > > > > <http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180525185501.82098-1-shakeelb@google.com/>.
> > > >
> > > > I have completely forgot about that one. It seems that we have just
> > > > repeated the same discussion again. This time we have a poor user who
> > > > actually enabled the kmem limit.
> > > >
> > > > I guess there was no real objection to the change back then. The primary
> > > > discussion revolved around the fact that the accounting will stay broken
> > > > even when this particular part was fixed. Considering this leads to easy
> > > > to trigger crash (with the limit enabled) then I guess we should just
> > > > make it less broken and backport to stable trees and have a serious
> > > > discussion about discontinuing of the limit. Start by simply failing to
> > > > set any limit in the current upstream kernels.
> > >
> > > Any more concerns/objections to the patch? I can add a reference to your
> > > earlier post Shakeel if you want or to credit you the way you prefer.
> > >
> > > Also are there any objections to start deprecating process of kmem
> > > limit? I would see it in two stages
> > > - 1st warn in the kernel log
> > >     pr_warn("kmem.limit_in_bytes is deprecated and will be removed.
> > >             "Please report your usecase to linux-mm@...ck.org if you "
> > >             "depend on this functionality."
> >
> > pr_warn_once() :)
> >
> > > - 2nd fail any write to kmem.limit_in_bytes
> > > - 3rd remove the control file completely
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
>
> Here we go
>
> From 512822e551fe2960040c23b12c7b27a5fdab9013 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:02:33 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] memcg, kmem: deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes
>
> Cgroup v1 memcg controller has exposed a dedicated kmem limit to users
> which turned out to be really a bad idea because there are paths which
> cannot shrink the kernel memory usage enough to get below the limit
> (e.g. because the accounted memory is not reclaimable). There are cases
> when the failure is even not allowed (e.g. __GFP_NOFAIL). This means
> that the kmem limit is in excess to the hard limit without any way to
> shrink and thus completely useless. OOM killer cannot be invoked to
> handle the situation because that would lead to a premature oom killing.
>
> As a result many places might see ENOMEM returning from kmalloc and
> result in unexpected errors. E.g. a global OOM killer when there is a
> lot of free memory because ENOMEM is translated into VM_FAULT_OOM in #PF
> path and therefore pagefault_out_of_memory would result in OOM killer.
>
> Please note that the kernel memory is still accounted to the overall
> limit along with the user memory so removing the kmem specific limit
> should still allow to contain kernel memory consumption. Unlike the kmem
> one, though, it invokes memory reclaim and targeted memcg oom killing if
> necessary.
>
> Start the deprecation process by crying to the kernel log. Let's see
> whether there are relevant usecases and simply return to EINVAL in the
> second stage if nobody complains in few releases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>

> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst | 3 +++
>  mm/memcontrol.c                                | 3 +++
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> index 41bdc038dad9..e53fc2f31549 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Brief summary of control files.
>                                      node
>
>   memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes          set/show hard limit for kernel memory
> +                                     This knob is deprecated it shouldn't be
> +                                     used. It is planned to be removed in
> +                                     a foreseeable future.
>   memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes          show current kernel memory allocation
>   memory.kmem.failcnt                 show the number of kernel memory usage
>                                      hits limits
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index e18108b2b786..113969bc57e8 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -3518,6 +3518,9 @@ static ssize_t mem_cgroup_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>                         ret = mem_cgroup_resize_max(memcg, nr_pages, true);
>                         break;
>                 case _KMEM:
> +                       pr_warn_once("kmem.limit_in_bytes is deprecated and will be removed. "
> +                                    "Please report your usecase to linux-mm@...ck.org if you "
> +                                    "depend on this functionality.\n");
>                         ret = memcg_update_kmem_max(memcg, nr_pages);
>                         break;
>                 case _TCP:
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists