linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] memcg/hugetlb: Adding hugeTLB counters to memcg

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: <ZyJQaXAZSMKkFVQ2@tiehlicka>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:27:37 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, nphamcs@...il.com,
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
	muchun.song@...ux.dev, tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
	mkoutny@...e.com, corbet@....net, lnyng@...a.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] memcg/hugetlb: Adding hugeTLB counters to memcg

On Wed 30-10-24 11:01:02, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:35:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 28-10-24 14:05:05, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Changelog
> > > v3:
> > >   * Removed check for whether CGRP_ROOT_HUGETLB_ACCOUNTING is on, since
> > >     this check is already handled by lruvec_stat_mod (and doing the
> > >     check in hugetlb.c actually breaks the build if MEMCG is not
> > >     enabled.
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index 190fa05635f4..fbb10e52d7ea 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -1925,6 +1925,7 @@ void free_huge_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > >  				     pages_per_huge_page(h), folio);
> > >  	hugetlb_cgroup_uncharge_folio_rsvd(hstate_index(h),
> > >  					  pages_per_huge_page(h), folio);
> > > +	lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, NR_HUGETLB, -pages_per_huge_page(h));
> > >  	mem_cgroup_uncharge(folio);
> > >  	if (restore_reserve)
> > >  		h->resv_huge_pages++;
> > > @@ -3093,6 +3094,7 @@ struct folio *alloc_hugetlb_folio(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > >  
> > >  	if (!memcg_charge_ret)
> > >  		mem_cgroup_commit_charge(folio, memcg);
> > > +	lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, NR_HUGETLB, pages_per_huge_page(h));
> > >  	mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> > >  
> > >  	return folio;
> > 
> > I do not see any specific checks for CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_HUGETLB_ACCOUNTING
> > in these paths. I guess you wanted to say that you rely on
> > mem_cgroup_commit_charge setting memcg pointer which then __lruvec_stat_mod_folio
> > relies on when updating stats.
> 
> Yes, this is what Shakeel pointed out here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/il346o3nahawquum3t5rzcuuntkdpyahidpm2ctmdibj3td7pm@2aqirlm5hrdh/

It belongs to the changelog.

> > I suspect this all is done because you want a global counter to be
> > updated as well, right? Changelog doesn't say anything about that
> > though. Why is this needed when /proc/meminfo already describes the
> > global hugetlb usage?
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> vmstats is the preferred framework for cgroup stats. It makes stat
> items consistent between global and cgroup. It provides a per-node
> breakdown as well which is useful. It avoids proliferating
> cgroup-specific hooks in generic MM code.
> 
> It was a ton of work to integrate cgroup stats into vmstats and get
> rid of all the memcg special casing everywhere. You were there for all
> of it. We're not adding cgroup-specific stats unless unavoidable.
> 
> Duplication doesn't matter, either. We have plenty of overlap between
> vmstat and meminfo. By all means, send a follow-up patch to have the
> meminfo one sourced from global_node_page_state().
> 
> But you know all this.

It is not really important what _I_ do know. The commit log is not
written for me.

Joshua has greatly improved the motivation part. Yet implementation
specifics are still lacking behind mostly left in Changelog part of the
commit message which will be dropped along with the diffstat.

> I'm having a hard time seeing the way you are,
> and have been, engaging with this patch as good-faithed.

Sorry to hear that but this hasn't been my intention. My main focus has
been to put implicit assumptions into patch description. I really do not
see reason for such a pushback TBH.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs