linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: expose children memory usage for root

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: <CAJD7tkYCERG5pUTcdmw8UGks8wtK9W9jzZGZODE6sZ-9-WEv-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:43:31 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, 
	Facebook Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: expose children memory usage for root

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:30 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:25:27AM GMT, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 8:48 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > >
> > > No, the workloads running in non-root memcgs will not see any
> > > difference. Only the workloads running in root will see charging
> > > overhead.
> >
> > Oh yeah we already charge the root's page counters hierarchically in
> > the upstream kernel, we just do not charge them if the origin of the
> > charge is the root itself.
> >
> > We also have workloads that iterate top-level memcgs to calculate the
> > total charged memory, so memory.children_usage for the root memcg
> > would help.
> >
> > As for memory.current, do you have any data about how much memory is
> > charged to the root itself? We think of the memory charged to the root
> > as system overhead, while the memory charged to top-level memcgs
> > isn't.
> >
> > So basically total_memory - root::memory.children_usage would be a
> > fast way to get a rough estimation of system overhead. The same would
> > not apply for total_memory - root::memory.current if I understand
> > correctly.
>
> Please note that root::memory.children_usage will have top level zombies
> included as well (at least until lru reparenting is not done). So, for
> your example it would provide good estimation of top level zombie memory
> through root::memory.children_usage - top_level(alive)::memory.current.

Good point. The fact that it includes the top-level zombies makes it
less valuable for this use case, as zombie memory is considered system
overhead as well. So we need to iterate the top level memcgs anyway.