linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: support control THP behaviour in cgroup

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 09:47:47 +0000
From:   CGEL <cgel.zte@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, willy@...radead.org,
        shy828301@...il.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        linmiaohe@...wei.com, william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        peterx@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        songmuchun@...edance.com, surenb@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: support control THP behaviour in cgroup

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:21:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-05-22 01:59:52, CGEL wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 03:36:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Can you come up with a sane hierarchical behavior?
> > >
> > 
> > I think this new interface better be independent not hierarchical anyway. Especially
> > when we treat container as lightweight virtual machine.
> 
> I suspect you are focusing too much on your usecase and do not realize
> wider consequences of this being an user interface that still has to be
> sensible for other usecases. Take a delagation of the control to
> subgroups as an example. If this is a per memcg knob (like swappiness)
> then children can override parent's THP policy. This might be a less of
> the deal for swappiness because the anon/file reclaim balancing should
> be mostly an internal thing. But THP policy is different because it has
> other effects to workloads running outside of the said cgroup - higher
> memory demand, higher contention for high-order memory etc.
> 

Higher memory demand will be limited by memsw.limit_in_bytes right?
And cgroup really cares about high-order memory usage? At least for
now there are no cgroup limit for this.

> I do not really see how this could be a sensible per-memcg policy
> without being fully hierarchical.
>

Thanks to your patient discuss, as Roman said, I will try to realize this
with bpf.

> > 
> > > [...]
> > > > > > For micro-service architecture, the application in one container is not a
> > > > > > set of loosely tight processes, it's aim at provide one certain service,
> > > > > > so different containers means different service, and different service
> > > > > > has different QoS demand. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, if they are tightly coupled you could apply the same THP policy by
> > > > > an existing prctl interface. Why is that not feasible. As you are noting
> > > > > below...
> > > > > 
> > > > > >     5.containers usually managed by compose software, which treats container as
> > > > > > base management unit;
> > > > > 
> > > > > ..so the compose software can easily start up the workload by using prctl
> > > > > to disable THP for whatever workloads it is not suitable for.
> > > > 
> > > > prctl(PR_SET_THP_DISABLE..) can not be elegance to support the semantic we
> > > > need. If only some containers needs THP, other containers and host do not need
> > > > THP. We must set host THP to always first, and call prctl() to close THP for
> > > > host tasks and other containers one by one,
> > > 
> > > It might not be the most elegant solution but it should work.
> > 
> > So you agree it's reasonable to set THP policy for process in container, right?
> 
> Yes, like in any other processes.
> 
> > If so, IMHO, when there are thousands of processes launch and die on the machine,
> > it will be horrible to do so by calling prctl(), I don't see the reasonability.
> 
> Could you be more specific? The usual prctl use would be normally
> handled by the launcher and rely on the per-process policy to be
> inherited down the road.
>
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs