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: <cf5ca7a1-7965-f307-22e1-e216316904cf@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:48:37 -0800
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        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 v2 2/3] mm: Force update of mem cgroup soft limit tree on
 usage excess



On 2/22/21 11:09 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

>>
>> I actually have tried adjusting the threshold but found that it doesn't work well for
>> the case with unenven memory access frequency between cgroups.  The soft
>> limit for the low memory event cgroup could creep up quite a lot, exceeding
>> the soft limit by hundreds of MB, even
>> if I drop the SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_TARGET from 1024 to something like 8.
> 
> What was the underlying reason? Higher order allocations?
> 

Not high order allocation.

The reason was because the run away memcg asks for memory much less often, compared
to the other memcgs in the system.  So it escapes the sampling update and
was not put onto the tree and exceeds the soft limit
pretty badly.  Even if it was put onto the tree and gets page reclaimed below the
limit, it could escape the sampling the next time it exceeds the soft limit.

As long as we are doing sampling update, this problem is baked in unless we
add the check to make sure that the memcg is subjected to page reclaim as long
as it exceeds the soft limit.

Tim

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ