linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YCMLEB/2IscnaGGh@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:22:08 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates

Hello Tim,

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:29:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> @@ -6849,7 +6850,9 @@ static void uncharge_page(struct page *page, struct uncharge_gather *ug)
>  	 * exclusive access to the page.
>  	 */
>  
> -	if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page)) {
> +	if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page) ||
> +	    /* uncharge batch update soft limit tree on a node basis */
> +	    (ug->dummy_page && ug->nid != page_to_nid(page))) {

The fix makes sense to me.

However, unconditionally breaking up the batch by node can
unnecessarily regress workloads in cgroups that do not have a soft
limit configured, and cgroup2 which doesn't have soft limits at
all. Consider an interleaving allocation policy for example.

Can you please further gate on memcg->soft_limit != PAGE_COUNTER_MAX,
or at least on !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)?

Thanks