linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem

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, 24 Aug 2022 12:27:00 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Ke Wang <ke.wang@...soc.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem_cgroup when css is inherited

On Wed 24-08-22 17:34:42, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:50 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 24-08-22 10:23:14, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:51 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > One way to achieve that would be shaping the hierarchy the following way
> > > >             root
> > > >         /         \
> > > > no_memcg[1]      memcg[2]
> > > > ||||||||         |||||
> > > > app_cgroups     app_cgroups
> > > >
> > > > with
> > > > no_memcg.subtree_control = ""
> > > > memcg.subtree_control = memory
> > > >
> > > > no?
> > > According to my understanding, No as there will be no no_memcg. All
> > > children groups under root would have its cgroup.controllers = memory
> > > as long as root has memory enabled.
> >
> > Correct
> >
> > > Under this circumstance, all
> > > descendants group under 'no_memcg' will charge memory to its parent
> > > group.
> >
> > Correct. And why is that a problem? I thought you main concern was a per
> > application LRUs. With the above configuration all app_cgroups which do
> > not require an explicit memory control will share the same (no_memcg)
> > LRU and they will be aged together.
> I can't agree since this indicates the processes want memory free
> depending on a specific hierarchy which could have been determined by
> other subsys.

I really fail to understand your requirements.

> IMHO, charging the pages which out of explicitly memory
> enabled group to root could solve all of the above constraints with no
> harm.

This would break the hierarchical property of the controller. So a
strong no no. Consider the following example

       root
	|
	A
controllers="memory"
memory.max = 1G
subtree_control=""
|      |      |
A1     A2     A3

althought A1,2,3 do not have their memory controller enabled explicitly
they are still constrained by the A memcg limit. If you just charge to
the root because it doesn't have memory controller enabled explicitly
then you just evade that constrain. I hope you understand why that is a
problem.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs