Message-ID: <Y/UIURDjR9pv+gzx@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:07:13 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jhubbard@...dia.com, tjmercier@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        surenb@...gle.com, mkoutny@...e.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        "Daniel P . Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory

Hello,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:51:12PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Yeah, so, what I'm trying to say is that that might be the source of the
> > problem. Is the current page ownership attribution correct 
> 
> It should be correct.
> 
> This mechanism is driven by pin_user_page(), (as it is the only API
> that can actually create a pin) so the cgroup owner of the page is
> broadly related to the "owner" of the VMA's inode.
> 
> The owner of the pin is the caller of pin_user_page(), which is
> initated by some FD/proces that is not necessarily related to the
> VMA's inode.
> 
> Eg concretely, something like io_uring will do something like:
>   buffer = mmap()     <- Charge memcg for the pages
>   fd = io_uring_setup(..)
>   io_uring_register(fd,xx,buffer,..);   <- Charge the pincg for the pin
> 
> If mmap is a private anonymous VMA created by the same process then it
> is likely the pages will have the same cgroup as io_uring_register and
> the FD.
> 
> Otherwise the page cgroup is unconstrained. MAP_SHARED mappings will
> have the page cgroup point at whatever cgroup was first to allocate
> the page for the VMA's inode.
> 
> AFAIK there are few real use cases to establish a pin on MAP_SHARED
> mappings outside your cgroup. However, it is possible, the APIs allow
> it, and for security sandbox purposes we can't allow a process inside
> a cgroup to triger a charge on a different cgroup. That breaks the
> sandbox goal.

It seems broken anyway. Please consider the following scenario:

1. A is a tiny cgroup which only does streaming IOs and has memory.high of
   128M which is more than sufficient for IO window. The last file it
   streamed happened to be F which was about 256M.

2. B is an a lot larger cgroup w/ pin limit way above 256M. B pins the
   entirety of F.

3. A now tries to stream another file but F is almost fully occupying its
   memory allowance and can't be evicted. A keeps thrashing due to lack of
   memory and isolation is completely broken.

This stems directly from page ownership and pin accounting discrepancy.

> If memcg could support multiple owners then it would be logical that
> the pinner would be one of the memcg owners.
> 
> > for whatever reason is determining the pinning ownership or should the page
> > ownership be attributed the same way too? If they indeed need to differ,
> > that probably would need pretty strong justifications.
> 
> It is inherent to how pin_user_pages() works. It is an API that
> establishs pins on existing pages. There is nothing about it that says
> who the page's memcg owner is.
> 
> I don't think we can do anything about this without breaking things.

That's a discrepancy in an internal interface and we don't wanna codify
something like that into userspace interface. Semantially, it seems like if
pin_user_pages() wanna charge pinning to the cgroup associated with an fd
(or whatever), it should also claim the ownership of the pages themselves. I
have no idea how feasiable that'd be from memcg POV tho. Given that this
would be a fairly cold path (in most cases, the ownership should already
match), maybe it won't be too bad?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists