linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: Charge active memcg when no mm is set

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: <CALvZod5_AgaS_=uvXsfsL1bthxMUk3DiD90Ach=cdMkaync5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:14:17 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)" 
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: Charge active memcg when no mm is set

Hi Johannes,

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:03 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Shakeel!
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:14:45AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > memalloc_use_memcg() worked for kernel allocations but was silently
> > > ignored for user pages.
> > >
> > > This patch establishes a precedence order for who gets charged:
> > >
> > > 1. If there is a memcg associated with the page already, that memcg is
> > >    charged. This happens during swapin.
> > >
> > > 2. If an explicit mm is passed, mm->memcg is charged. This happens
> > >    during page faults, which can be triggered in remote VMs (eg gup).
> > >
> > > 3. Otherwise consult the current process context. If it has configured
> > >    a current->active_memcg, use that.
> >
> > What if css_tryget_online(current->active_memcg) in
> > get_mem_cgroup_from_current() fails? Do we want to change this to
> > css_tryget() and even if that fails should we fallback to
> > root_mem_cgroup or current->mm->memcg?
>
> Good questions.
>
> I think we can switch to css_tryget(). If a cgroup goes offline
> between issuing the IO and the loop layer executing that IO, the
> resources used could end up in the root instead of the closest
> ancestor of the offlined group. However, the risk of that actually
> happening and causing problems is probably pretty small, and the
> behavior isn't really worse than before Dan's patches.

Agreed.

>
> Would you mind sending a separate patch for this? AFAICS similar
> concerns apply to all users of foreign charging.

Sure and yes similar concerns apply to other users as well.

>
> As for tryget failing: can that actually happen? AFAICS, all current
> users acquire a reference first (get_memcg_from_somewhere()) that they
> assign to current->active_memcg. We should probably codify this rule
> and do WARN_ON(!css_tryget()) /* current->active_memcg must hold a ref */

Yes, we should WARN_ON().

Shakeel