linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: protect the memory in cgroup from being oom killed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y4dXWsaLKRwJvWEY@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 14:15:06 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@...il.com>
Cc:     tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        corbet@....net, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        cgel.zte@...il.com, ran.xiaokai@....com.cn,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
        chengzhihao1@...wei.com, haolee.swjtu@...il.com, yuzhao@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, vasily.averin@...ux.dev, vbabka@...e.cz,
        surenb@...gle.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        sujiaxun@...ontech.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: protect the memory in cgroup from being
 oom killed

On Wed 30-11-22 15:01:58, chengkaitao wrote:
> From: chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@...il.com>
> 
> We created a new interface <memory.oom.protect> for memory, If there is
> the OOM killer under parent memory cgroup, and the memory usage of a
> child cgroup is within its effective oom.protect boundary, the cgroup's
> tasks won't be OOM killed unless there is no unprotected tasks in other
> children cgroups. It draws on the logic of <memory.min/low> in the
> inheritance relationship.

Could you be more specific about usecases? How do you tune oom.protect
wrt to other tunables? How does this interact with the oom_score_adj
tunining (e.g. a first hand oom victim with the score_adj 1000 sitting
in a oom protected memcg)?

I haven't really read through the whole patch but this struck me odd.

> @@ -552,8 +552,19 @@ static int proc_oom_score(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>  	unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages;
>  	unsigned long points = 0;
>  	long badness;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>  
> -	badness = oom_badness(task, totalpages);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
> +	if (memcg && !css_tryget(&memcg->css))
> +		memcg = NULL;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	update_parent_oom_protection(root_mem_cgroup, memcg);
> +	css_put(&memcg->css);
> +#endif
> +	badness = oom_badness(task, totalpages, MEMCG_OOM_PROTECT);

the badness means different thing depending on which memcg hierarchy
subtree you look at. Scaling based on the global oom could get really
misleading.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs