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  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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 16:02:13 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high
 allocator throttling

Michal Hocko writes:
>> I have a good reason why we shouldn't: because it's special casing
>> memory.high from other forms of reclaim, and that is a maintainability
>> problem. We've recently been discussing ways to make the memory.high
>> implementation stand out less, not make it stand out even more. There
>> is no solid reason it should be different from memory.max reclaim,
>> except that it should sleep instead of invoke OOM at the end. It's
>> already a mess we're trying to get on top of and straighten out, and
>> you're proposing to add more kinks that will make this work harder.
>
>I do see your point of course. But I do not give the code consistency
>a higher priority than the potential unfairness aspect of the user
>visible behavior for something that can do better. Really the direct
>reclaim unfairness is really painfull and hard to explain to users. You
>can essentially only hand wave that system is struggling so fairness is
>not really a priority anymore.

It's not handwaving. When using cgroup features, including memory.high, the 
unit for consideration is a cgroup, not a task. That we happen to act on 
individual tasks in this case is just an implementation detail.

That one task in that cgroup is may be penalised "unfairly" is well within the 
specification: we set limits as part of a cgroup, we account as part of a 
cgroup, and we throttle and reclaim as part of a cgroup. We may make some very 
rudimentary attempts to "be fair" on a per-task basis where that's trivial, but 
that's just one-off niceties, not a statement of precedent.

When exceeding memory.high, the contract is "this cgroup must immediately 
attempt to shrink". Breaking it down per-task in terms of fairness at that 
point doesn't make sense: all the tasks in one cgroup are in it together.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists