linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] mm: shmem: provide oom badness for shmem files

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: <d4a19481-7a9f-19bf-c270-d89baa0970fc@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:29:46 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        alexander.deucher@....com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        hughd@...gle.com, andrey.grodzovsky@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] mm: shmem: provide oom badness for shmem files

Am 09.06.22 um 16:21 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> On Thu 09-06-22 16:10:33, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 09.06.22 um 14:57 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>>> On Thu 09-06-22 14:16:56, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 09.06.22 um 11:18 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>>>>> On Tue 31-05-22 11:59:57, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> This gives the OOM killer an additional hint which processes are
>>>>>> referencing shmem files with potentially no other accounting for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     mm/shmem.c | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>> index 4b2fea33158e..a4ad92a16968 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>> @@ -2179,6 +2179,11 @@ unsigned long shmem_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file,
>>>>>>     	return inflated_addr;
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>> +static long shmem_oom_badness(struct file *file)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	return i_size_read(file_inode(file)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>> This doesn't really represent the in memory size of the file, does it?
>>>> Well the file could be partially or fully swapped out as anonymous memory or
>>>> the address space only sparse populated, but even then just using the file
>>>> size as OOM badness sounded like the most straightforward approach to me.
>>> It covers hole as well, right?
>> Yes, exactly.
> So let's say I have a huge sparse shmem file. I will get killed because
> the oom_badness of such a file would be large as well...

Yes, correct. But I of hand don't see how we could improve that accounting.

>>>> What could happen is that the file is also mmaped and we double account.
>>>>
>>>>> Also the memcg oom handling could be considerably skewed if the file was
>>>>> shared between more memcgs.
>>>> Yes, and that's one of the reasons why I didn't touched the memcg by this
>>>> and only affected the classic OOM killer.
>>> oom_badness is for all oom handlers, including memcg. Maybe I have
>>> misread an earlier patch but I do not see anything specific to global
>>> oom handling.
>> As far as I can see the oom_badness() function is only used in
>> oom_kill.c and in procfs to return the oom score. Did I missed
>> something?
> oom_kill.c implements most of the oom killer functionality. Memcg oom
> killing is a part of that. Have a look at select_bad_process.

Ah! So mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() calls oom_evaluate_task for each task in 
the control group.

Thanks for pointing that out, that was absolutely not obvious to me.

Is that a show stopper? How should we address this?

Christian.