linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 08/11] secretmem: add memcg accounting

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: <20210127184213.GA919963@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:42:13 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <x86@...nel.org>, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 08/11] secretmem: add memcg accounting

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:05:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 26-01-21 14:48:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:38:17PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > I cannot use __GFP_ACCOUNT because cma_alloc() does not use gfp.
> > > Besides, kmem accounting with __GFP_ACCOUNT does not seem
> > > to update stats and there was an explicit request for statistics:
> > >  
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALo0P13aq3GsONnZrksZNU9RtfhMsZXGWhK1n=xYJWQizCd4Zw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > 
> > > As for (ab)using NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B, as it was already discussed here:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201129172625.GD557259@kernel.org/
> > > 
> > > I think that a dedicated stats counter would be too much at the moment and
> > > NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B is the only explicit stat for unreclaimable memory.
> > 
> > That's not true -- Mlocked is also unreclaimable.  And doesn't this
> > feel more like mlocked memory than unreclaimable slab?  It's also
> > Unevictable, so could be counted there instead.
> 
> yes, that is indeed true, except the unreclaimable counter is tracking
> the unevictable LRUs. These pages are not on any LRU and that can cause
> some confusion. Maybe they shouldn't be so special and they should live
> on unevistable LRU and get their stats automagically.
> 
> I definitely do agree that this would be a better fit than NR_SLAB
> abuse. But considering that this is somehow even more special than mlock
> then a dedicated counter sounds as even better fit.

I think it depends on how large these areas will be in practice.
If they will be measured in single or double digits MBs, a separate entry
is hardly a good choice: because of the batching the displayed value
will be in the noise range, plus every new vmstat item adds to the
struct mem_cgroup size.

If it will be measured in GBs, of course, a separate counter is preferred.
So I'd suggest to go with NR_SLAB (which should have been named NR_KMEM)
as now and conditionally switch to a separate counter later.

Thanks!