linux-kernel - Re: Expensive memory.stat + cpu.stat reads

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: <CABWYdi3z7Y4qdjPv4wiHyM6Wvwy_VwSLGA92=_PdYyVZgQDSYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:30:11 -0700
From:   Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Expensive memory.stat + cpu.stat reads

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:18 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 05:01:08PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > There have been a lot of problems coming from this global rstat lock:
> > hard lockups (when we used to flush atomically), unified flushing
> > being expensive, skipping flushing being inaccurate, etc.
> >
> > I wonder if it's time to rethink this lock and break it down into
> > granular locks. Perhaps a per-cgroup lock, and develop a locking
> > scheme where you always lock a parent then a child, then flush the
> > child and unlock it and move to the next child, etc. This will allow
> > concurrent flushing of non-root cgroups. Even when flushing the root,
> > if we flush all its children first without locking the root, then only
> > lock the root when flushing the top-level children, then some level of
> > concurrency can be achieved.
> >
> > Maybe this is too complicated, I never tried to implement it, but I
> > have been bouncing around this idea in my head for a while now.
> >
> > We can also split the update tree per controller. As far as I can tell
> > there is no reason to flush cpu stats for example when someone wants
> > to read memory stats.
>
> There's another thread. Let's continue there but I'm a bit skeptical whether
> splitting the lock is a good solution here. Regardless of locking, we don't
> want to run in an atomic context for that long anwyay.

Could you link to the other thread?