linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: memcg: don't call propagate_protected

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: <CAJD7tkYOgYMKp+u97wm6biA+C_2BR-B2hy6zi=cVqHovUxLTRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:13:17 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: memcg: don't call propagate_protected_usage() needlessly

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:21 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> Memory protection (min/low) requires a constant tracking of
> protected memory usage. propagate_protected_usage() is called
> on each page counters update and does a number of operations
> even in cases when the actual memory protection functionality
> is not supported (e.g. hugetlb cgroups or memcg swap counters).
>
> It's obviously inefficient and leads to a waste of CPU cycles.
> It can be addressed by calling propagate_protected_usage() only
> for the counters which do support memory guarantees. As of now
> it's only memcg->memory - the unified memory memcg counter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> ---
>  include/linux/page_counter.h |  8 +++++++-
>  mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c          |  4 ++--
>  mm/memcontrol.c              | 16 ++++++++--------
>  mm/page_counter.c            | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/page_counter.h b/include/linux/page_counter.h
> index 860f313182e7..b31fd5b208aa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/page_counter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/page_counter.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct page_counter {
>         /* Keep all the read most fields in a separete cacheline. */
>         CACHELINE_PADDING(_pad2_);
>
> +       bool protection_support;
>         unsigned long min;
>         unsigned long low;
>         unsigned long high;
> @@ -45,12 +46,17 @@ struct page_counter {
>  #define PAGE_COUNTER_MAX (LONG_MAX / PAGE_SIZE)
>  #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Protection is supported only for the first counter (with id 0).
> + */
>  static inline void page_counter_init(struct page_counter *counter,
> -                                    struct page_counter *parent)
> +                                    struct page_counter *parent,
> +                                    bool protection_support)

Would it be better to make this an internal helper (e.g.
__page_counter_init()), and add another API function that passes in
protection_support=true, for example:

static inline void page_counter_init_protected(..)
{
       __page_counter_init(.., true);
}

This will get rid of the naked booleans at the callsites of
page_counter_init(), which are more difficult to interpret. It will
also reduce the diff as we only need to change the page_counter_init()
calls of memcg->memory.

WDYT?

>  {
>         atomic_long_set(&counter->usage, 0);
>         counter->max = PAGE_COUNTER_MAX;
>         counter->parent = parent;
> +       counter->protection_support = protection_support;
>  }
[..]