linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control

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:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:05:16 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory
 control

On Tue 18-08-20 11:59:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 18-08-20 11:14:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of
> > > > physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in
> > > > a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim
> > > > memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough
> > > > to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup
> > > > to be around or below the "memory.high" limit.
> > > > 
> > > > Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate
> > > > that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case,
> > > > the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing. 
> > > 
> > > Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we
> > > slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits.
> > 
> > This is what we actually do. Have a look at mem_cgroup_handle_over_high.
> 
> But then how can it run-away like Waiman suggested?

As Chris mentioned in other reply. This functionality is quite new.
 
> /me goes look... and finds MEMCG_MAX_HIGH_DELAY_JIFFIES.

We can certainly tune a different backoff delays but I suspect this is
not the problem here.
 
> That's a fail... :-(

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs