linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] enable memcg accounting for kernfs objects

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: <YvLQsRf7KBezyE+B@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:25:05 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...nvz.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] enable memcg accounting for kernfs objects

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 07:31:31AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing Johannes)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 06:37:15PM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> > 1) creating a new netdevice allocates ~50Kb of memory, where ~10Kb
> >    was allocated for 80+ kernfs nodes.
> > 
> > 2) cgroupv2 mkdir allocates ~60Kb of memory, ~10Kb of them are kernfs
> >    structures.
> > 
> > 3) Shakeel Butt reports that Google has workloads which create 100s
> >    of subcontainers and they have observed high system overhead
> >    without memcg accounting of kernfs.
> 
> So, I don't have anything against accounting kernfs objects in general but,
> for cgroups, because cgroups are what determines what gets charged where,
> I'm not quite sure whether following the usual "charge it to the allocating
> task's cgroup" is the best way to go about it. I wonder whether it'd be
> better to attach it to the new cgroup's nearest ancestor with memcg enabled.

I also like this approach better, however Michal had some arguments against it.
I don't think there is a huge practical difference, so I'm ok with either
approach.

Thanks!