Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:24:05 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
        rppt@...nel.org, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, gustavoars@...nel.org,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, dave@...olabs.net,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, chenqiwu@...omi.com,
        christophe.leroy@....fr, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: proc: add Sock to /proc/meminfo



On 10/12/20 10:39 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:42 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:22 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:39 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:39 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The amount of memory allocated to sockets buffer can become significant.
>>>>> However, we do not display the amount of memory consumed by sockets
>>>>> buffer. In this case, knowing where the memory is consumed by the kernel
>>>>
>>>> We do it via `ss -m`. Is it not sufficient? And if not, why not adding it there
>>>> rather than /proc/meminfo?
>>>
>>> If the system has little free memory, we can know where the memory is via
>>> /proc/meminfo. If a lot of memory is consumed by socket buffer, we cannot
>>> know it when the Sock is not shown in the /proc/meminfo. If the unaware user
>>> can't think of the socket buffer, naturally they will not `ss -m`. The
>>> end result
>>> is that we still don’t know where the memory is consumed. And we add the
>>> Sock to the /proc/meminfo just like the memcg does('sock' item in the cgroup
>>> v2 memory.stat). So I think that adding to /proc/meminfo is sufficient.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  static inline void __skb_frag_unref(skb_frag_t *frag)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> -       put_page(skb_frag_page(frag));
>>>>> +       struct page *page = skb_frag_page(frag);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (put_page_testzero(page)) {
>>>>> +               dec_sock_node_page_state(page);
>>>>> +               __put_page(page);
>>>>> +       }
>>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> You mix socket page frag with skb frag at least, not sure this is exactly
>>>> what you want, because clearly skb page frags are frequently used
>>>> by network drivers rather than sockets.
>>>>
>>>> Also, which one matches this dec_sock_node_page_state()? Clearly
>>>> not skb_fill_page_desc() or __skb_frag_ref().
>>>
>>> Yeah, we call inc_sock_node_page_state() in the skb_page_frag_refill().
>>> So if someone gets the page returned by skb_page_frag_refill(), it must
>>> put the page via __skb_frag_unref()/skb_frag_unref(). We use PG_private
>>> to indicate that we need to dec the node page state when the refcount of
>>> page reaches zero.
>>>
>>
>> Pages can be transferred from pipe to socket, socket to pipe (splice()
>> and zerocopy friends...)
>>
>>  If you want to track TCP memory allocations, you always can look at
>> /proc/net/sockstat,
>> without adding yet another expensive memory accounting.
> 
> The 'mem' item in the /proc/net/sockstat does not represent real
> memory usage. This is just the total amount of charged memory.
> 
> For example, if a task sends a 10-byte message, it only charges one
> page to memcg. But the system may allocate 8 pages. Therefore, it
> does not truly reflect the memory allocated by the above memory
> allocation path. We can see the difference via the following message.
> 
> cat /proc/net/sockstat
>   sockets: used 698
>   TCP: inuse 70 orphan 0 tw 617 alloc 134 mem 13
>   UDP: inuse 90 mem 4
>   UDPLITE: inuse 0
>   RAW: inuse 1
>   FRAG: inuse 0 memory 0
> 
> cat /proc/meminfo | grep Sock
>   Sock:              13664 kB
> 
> The /proc/net/sockstat only shows us that there are 17*4 kB TCP
> memory allocations. But apply this patch, we can see that we truly
> allocate 13664 kB(May be greater than this value because of per-cpu
> stat cache). Of course the load of the example here is not high. In
> some high load cases, I believe the difference here will be even
> greater.
> 

This is great, but you have not addressed my feedback.

TCP memory allocations are bounded by /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem

Fact that the memory is forward allocated or not is a detail.

If you think we must pre-allocate memory, instead of forward allocations,
your patch does not address this. Adding one line per consumer in /proc/meminfo looks
wrong to me.

If you do not want 9.37 % of physical memory being possibly used by TCP,
just change /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem accordingly ?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists