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]

Message-ID: <CAGWkznH5gQXigdLx=fwdL0uqdGx4WE9QP8b8cbWFxr=Rdg-CZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:34:04 +0800
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.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 Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:40 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 25-08-22 08:43:52, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:27 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 24-08-22 17:34:42, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> [...]
> > > > 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.
> > IMO, A1-A3 should be explicitly enabled via echo "+memory" >
> > A/subtree_control since memory.max has been set.
>
> You seem to be missing the point I've triedy to make here. It is not
> about how the respective subtree should or shouldn't be configured. It
> is about the hierarchical behavior. Configuration at a higher level should be
> enforced under subtree no matter how that subtree decides to
> enabled/disable controllers. Such subtree might have beeb delegated
> and configured differently yet the constrain should be still applied.
> See the point?
>
> What you seem to be proposing is similar to cgroup v1 use_hierarchy
> configuration. It has been decided that this is undesirable very early
> in the cgroup v2 development because it make delegation impossible
> (among other reasons).
Ok, I would like to know how AA3 achieve the goal of competing with A1
and A2 for cpu but keep memory out of control under current policy?
        root
         |
         A
 controllers="memory,cpu"
 memory.max = 1G
 subtree_control="memory,cpu"
 |      |            |
 A1     A2     A3 subtree_control="cpu"
                      |      |
                    AA3   AA4 controllers="cpu"
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs