linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: make memory.oom.group tolerable to task migration

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: <20200318123107.GK21362@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:31:07 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel-team@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: make memory.oom.group tolerable to task
 migration

On Tue 17-03-20 13:36:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> > > And the we can put something like
> > > 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!mem_cgroup_is_descendant(memcg, oom_domain)))
> > > 		goto out;
> > > to mem_cgroup_get_oom_group?
> > 
> > This would be a user triggerable warning and that sounds like a bad idea
> > to me. We should just live with races. The only question I still do not
> > have a proper answer for is how much we do care. If we do not care all
> > that much about the original memcg then go with your patch. But if we
> > want to be slightly more careful then we should note the memcg in
> > oom_evaluate_task and use it when killing.
> 
> But it won't close the race, right?
>
> oom_evaluate_task() can race with a task migration too, so we can record
> the old or the new cgroup.

Are you sure? I thought that cgroups iterator code would take care of
those races. The documentation doesn't tell much in that respect. Maybe
it would be good to add a clarification there.
 
> Then I'd stick with my original patch which solves the main problem here:
> unnecessary killing of too many tasks.

OK, I am fine with that. I couldn't convince myself that the other part
of the problem is serious enough. Maybe we will find workloads which do
care and we can add that later on.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs