linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

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: <YkdplNIhtz3iyLKv@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 17:07:32 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 01:14:35PM -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 8:22 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 09:05:15PM -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > It is better to return an error code (e.g. -EBUSY) when
> > > memory_reclaim() fails to reclaim nr_to_reclaim bytes of memory,
> > > except if the cgroup memory usage is already 0.  We can also return
> > > -EINVAL if nr_to_reclaim is too large (e.g. > limit).
> >
> > For -EBUSY, are you thinking of a specific usecase where that would
> > come in handy? I'm not really opposed to it, but couldn't convince
> > myself of the practical benefits of it, either.
> >
> > Keep in mind that MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES failed reclaim attempts usually
> > constitute an OOM situation: memory.max will issue kills and
> > memory.high will begin crippling throttling. In what scenario would
> > you want to keep reclaiming a workload that is considered OOM?
> >
> > Certainly, proactive reclaim that wants to purge only the cold tail of
> > the workload wouldn't retry. Meta's version of this patch actually
> > does return -EAGAIN on reclaim failure, but the userspace daemon
> > doesn't do anything with it, so I didn't bring it up.
> 
> -EAGAIN sounds good, too.  Given that the userspace requests to
> reclaim a specified number of bytes, I think it is generally better to
> tell the userspace whether the request has been successfully
> fulfilled. Ideally, it would be even better to return how many bytes
> that have been reclaimed, though that is not easy to do through the
> cgroup interface. The userspace can choose to ignore the return value
> or log a message/update some stats (which Google does) for the
> monitoring purpose.

Fair enough, thanks for your thoughts. No objection from me!