linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: memcontrol: deprecate charge moving

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: <CALvZod63UBrAGXpzs0ukdazvjmBfb61t9PCzUhjrbnDWTaP59Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:15:17 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: memcontrol: deprecate charge moving

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:51 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:03:54 -0800 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 9:14 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Charge moving mode in cgroup1 allows memory to follow tasks as they
> > > migrate between cgroups. This is, and always has been, a questionable
> > > thing to do - for several reasons.
> > >
> > > First, it's expensive. Pages need to be identified, locked and
> > > isolated from various MM operations, and reassigned, one by one.
> > >
> > > Second, it's unreliable. Once pages are charged to a cgroup, there
> > > isn't always a clear owner task anymore. Cache isn't moved at all, for
> > > example. Mapped memory is moved - but if trylocking or isolating a
> > > page fails, it's arbitrarily left behind. Frequent moving between
> > > domains may leave a task's memory scattered all over the place.
> > >
> > > Third, it isn't really needed. Launcher tasks can kick off workload
> > > tasks directly in their target cgroup. Using dedicated per-workload
> > > groups allows fine-grained policy adjustments - no need to move tasks
> > > and their physical pages between control domains. The feature was
> > > never forward-ported to cgroup2, and it hasn't been missed.
> > >
> > > Despite it being a niche usecase, the maintenance overhead of
> > > supporting it is enormous. Because pages are moved while they are live
> > > and subject to various MM operations, the synchronization rules are
> > > complicated. There are lock_page_memcg() in MM and FS code, which
> > > non-cgroup people don't understand. In some cases we've been able to
> > > shift code and cgroup API calls around such that we can rely on native
> > > locking as much as possible. But that's fragile, and sometimes we need
> > > to hold MM locks for longer than we otherwise would (pte lock e.g.).
> > >
> > > Mark the feature deprecated. Hopefully we can remove it soon.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> >
> > I would request this patch to be backported to stable kernels as well
> > for early warnings to users which update to newer kernels very late.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but the changelog should have a few words in it
> explaining why we're requesting the backport.  I guess I can type those
> in.

Thanks a lot.

>
> We're at -rc8 and I'm not planning on merging these up until after
> 6.2-rc1 is out.  Please feel free to argue with me on that score.

No, I totally agree with you. There is no such urgency in merging
these and a couple of weeks delay is totally fine.