linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in memory controller

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: <20231003224214.GE314430@monkey>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:42:14 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        riel@...riel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, tj@...nel.org,
        lizefan.x@...edance.com, shuah@...nel.org, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
        fvdl@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in
 memory controller

On 10/03/23 15:09, Nhat Pham wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:39 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:01:24AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 10:13 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/02/23 17:18, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, huge page usage is charged in alloc_hugetlb_folio and uncharged in
> > > > free_huge_folio.  During migration, huge pages are allocated via
> > > > alloc_migrate_hugetlb_folio, not alloc_hugetlb_folio.  So, there is no
> > > > charging for the migration target page and we uncharge the source page.
> > > > It looks like there will be no charge for the huge page after migration?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah I see! This is a bit subtle indeed.
> > >
> > > For the hugetlb controller, it looks like they update the cgroup info
> > > inside move_hugetlb_state(), which calls hugetlb_cgroup_migrate()
> > > to transfer the hugetlb cgroup info to the destination folio.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we can do something analogous here.
> > >
> > > > If my analysis above is correct, then we may need to be careful about
> > > > this accounting.  We may not want both source and target pages to be
> > > > charged at the same time.
> > >
> > > We can create a variant of mem_cgroup_migrate that does not double
> > > charge, but instead just copy the mem_cgroup information to the new
> > > folio, and then clear that info from the old folio. That way the memory
> > > usage counters are untouched.
> > >
> > > Somebody with more expertise on migration should fact check me
> > > of course :)
> >
> > The only reason mem_cgroup_migrate() double charges right now is
> > because it's used by replace_page_cache_folio(). In that context, the
> > isolation of the old page isn't quite as thorough as with migration,
> > so it cannot transfer and uncharge directly. This goes back a long
> > time: 0a31bc97c80c3fa87b32c091d9a930ac19cd0c40
> >
> > If you rename the current implementation to mem_cgroup_replace_page()
> > for that one caller, you can add a mem_cgroup_migrate() variant which
> > is charge neutral and clears old->memcg_data. This can be used for
> > regular and hugetlb page migration. Something like this (totally
> > untested):
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index a4d3282493b6..17ec45bf3653 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -7226,29 +7226,14 @@ void mem_cgroup_migrate(struct folio *old, struct folio *new)
> >         if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       /* Page cache replacement: new folio already charged? */
> > -       if (folio_memcg(new))
> > -               return;
> > -
> >         memcg = folio_memcg(old);
> >         VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(!memcg, old);
> >         if (!memcg)
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       /* Force-charge the new page. The old one will be freed soon */
> > -       if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) {
> > -               page_counter_charge(&memcg->memory, nr_pages);
> > -               if (do_memsw_account())
> > -                       page_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, nr_pages);
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       css_get(&memcg->css);
> > +       /* Transfer the charge and the css ref */
> >         commit_charge(new, memcg);
> > -
> > -       local_irq_save(flags);
> > -       mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(memcg, nr_pages);
> > -       memcg_check_events(memcg, folio_nid(new));
> > -       local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +       old->memcg_data = 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
> >
> 
> Ah, I like this. Will send a fixlet based on this :)
> I was scratching my head trying to figure out why we were
> doing the double charging in the first place. Thanks for the context,
> Johannes!

Be sure to check for code similar to this in folio_migrate_flags:

void folio_migrate_flags(struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio)
{
...
	if (!folio_test_hugetlb(folio))
		mem_cgroup_migrate(folio, newfolio);
}

There are many places where hugetlb is special cased.
-- 
Mike Kravetz