[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuNWj_2tQA+0D-hpQgeJwWZRaQWxOCF=qagFnA8+yb3R1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:22:40 -0800
From: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] Swapin path refactor for optimization and bugfix
Hi Kairui,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:10 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:48 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> >
> > This series tries to unify and clean up the swapin path, fixing a few
> > issues with optimizations:
> >
> > 1. Memcg leak issue: when a process that previously swapped out some
> > migrated to another cgroup, and the origianl cgroup is dead. If we
> > do a swapoff, swapped in pages will be accounted into the process
> > doing swapoff instead of the new cgroup. This will allow the process
> > to use more memory than expect easily.
> >
> > This can be easily reproduced by:
> > - Setup a swap.
> > - Create memory cgroup A, B and C.
> > - Spawn process P1 in cgroup A and make it swap out some pages.
> > - Move process P1 to memory cgroup B.
> > - Destroy cgroup A.
> > - Do a swapoff in cgroup C
> > - Swapped in pages is accounted into cgroup C.
> >
> > This patch will fix it make the swapped in pages accounted in cgroup B.
> >
>
> I guess this only works for anonymous memory and not shmem, right?
>
> I think tying memcg charges to a process is not something we usually
> do. Charging the pages to the memcg of the faulting process if the
> previous owner is dead makes sense, it's essentially recharging the
> memory to the new owner. Swapoff is indeed a special case, since the
> faulting process is not the new owner, but an admin process or so. I
> am guessing charging to the new memcg of the previous owner might make
> sense in this case, but it is a change of behavior.
>
I was looking at this at patch 23 as well. Will ask more questions in
the patch thread.
I would suggest making these two behavior change patches separate out
from the clean up series to give it more exposure and proper
discussion.
Patch 5 and patch 23.
Chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists