| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4E81084F.9010208@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:18:39 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <gthelen@...gle.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory
Controller
On 09/26/2011 07:34 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:56:39 -0300
> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch lays down the foundation for the kernel memory component
>> of the Memory Controller.
>>
>> As of today, I am only laying down the following files:
>>
>> * memory.independent_kmem_limit
>> * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes (currently ignored)
>> * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes (always zero)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>
>> CC: Paul Menage<paul@...lmenage.org>
>> CC: Greg Thelen<gthelen@...gle.com>
>
> I'm sorry that my slow review is delaying you.
>
>
>> ---
>> Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 30 +++++++++-
>> init/Kconfig | 11 ++++
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 3 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> index 6f3c598..6f1954a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> @@ -44,8 +44,9 @@ Features:
>> - oom-killer disable knob and oom-notifier
>> - Root cgroup has no limit controls.
>>
>> - Kernel memory and Hugepages are not under control yet. We just manage
>> - pages on LRU. To add more controls, we have to take care of performance.
>> + Hugepages is not under control yet. We just manage pages on LRU. To add more
>> + controls, we have to take care of performance. Kernel memory support is work
>> + in progress, and the current version provides basically functionality.
>>
>> Brief summary of control files.
>>
>> @@ -56,8 +57,11 @@ Brief summary of control files.
>> (See 5.5 for details)
>> memory.memsw.usage_in_bytes # show current res_counter usage for memory+Swap
>> (See 5.5 for details)
>> + memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes # show current res_counter usage for kmem only.
>> + (See 2.7 for details)
>> memory.limit_in_bytes # set/show limit of memory usage
>> memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes # set/show limit of memory+Swap usage
>> + memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes # if allowed, set/show limit of kernel memory
>> memory.failcnt # show the number of memory usage hits limits
>> memory.memsw.failcnt # show the number of memory+Swap hits limits
>> memory.max_usage_in_bytes # show max memory usage recorded
>> @@ -72,6 +76,9 @@ Brief summary of control files.
>> memory.oom_control # set/show oom controls.
>> memory.numa_stat # show the number of memory usage per numa node
>>
>> + memory.independent_kmem_limit # select whether or not kernel memory limits are
>> + independent of user limits
>> +
>> 1. History
>>
>> The memory controller has a long history. A request for comments for the memory
>> @@ -255,6 +262,25 @@ When oom event notifier is registered, event will be delivered.
>> per-zone-per-cgroup LRU (cgroup's private LRU) is just guarded by
>> zone->lru_lock, it has no lock of its own.
>>
>> +2.7 Kernel Memory Extension (CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM)
>> +
>> + With the Kernel memory extension, the Memory Controller is able to limit
>> +the amount of kernel memory used by the system. Kernel memory is fundamentally
>> +different than user memory, since it can't be swapped out, which makes it
>> +possible to DoS the system by consuming too much of this precious resource.
>> +Kernel memory limits are not imposed for the root cgroup.
>> +
>> +Memory limits as specified by the standard Memory Controller may or may not
>> +take kernel memory into consideration. This is achieved through the file
>> +memory.independent_kmem_limit. A Value different than 0 will allow for kernel
>> +memory to be controlled separately.
>> +
>> +When kernel memory limits are not independent, the limit values set in
>> +memory.kmem files are ignored.
>> +
>> +Currently no soft limit is implemented for kernel memory. It is future work
>> +to trigger slab reclaim when those limits are reached.
>> +
>> 3. User Interface
>>
>> 0. Configuration
>> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
>> index d627783..49e5839 100644
>> --- a/init/Kconfig
>> +++ b/init/Kconfig
>> @@ -689,6 +689,17 @@ config CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP_ENABLED
>> For those who want to have the feature enabled by default should
>> select this option (if, for some reason, they need to disable it
>> then swapaccount=0 does the trick).
>> +config CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> + bool "Memory Resource Controller Kernel Memory accounting"
>> + depends on CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
>> + default y
>> + help
>> + The Kernel Memory extension for Memory Resource Controller can limit
>> + the amount of memory used by kernel objects in the system. Those are
>> + fundamentally different from the entities handled by the standard
>> + Memory Controller, which are page-based, and can be swapped. Users of
>> + the kmem extension can use it to guarantee that no group of processes
>> + will ever exhaust kernel resources alone.
>>
>> config CGROUP_PERF
>> bool "Enable perf_event per-cpu per-container group (cgroup) monitoring"
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index ebd1e86..d32e931 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -73,7 +73,11 @@ static int really_do_swap_account __initdata = 0;
>> #define do_swap_account (0)
>> #endif
>>
>> -
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> +int do_kmem_account __read_mostly = 1;
>> +#else
>> +#define do_kmem_account 0
>> +#endif
>
>
> Hmm, do we really need this boot option ?
> From my experience to have swap-accounting boot option,
> this scares us ;) I think config is enough.
>
>
>
>
>> /*
>> * Statistics for memory cgroup.
>> */
>> @@ -270,6 +274,10 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>> */
>> struct res_counter memsw;
>> /*
>> + * the counter to account for kmem usage.
>> + */
>> + struct res_counter kmem;
>> + /*
>> * Per cgroup active and inactive list, similar to the
>> * per zone LRU lists.
>> */
>> @@ -321,6 +329,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>> */
>> unsigned long move_charge_at_immigrate;
>> /*
>> + * Should kernel memory limits be stabilished independently
>> + * from user memory ?
>> + */
>> + int kmem_independent;
>> + /*
>> * percpu counter.
>> */
>> struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat;
>> @@ -388,9 +401,14 @@ enum charge_type {
>> };
>>
>> /* for encoding cft->private value on file */
>> -#define _MEM (0)
>> -#define _MEMSWAP (1)
>> -#define _OOM_TYPE (2)
>> +
>> +enum mem_type {
>> + _MEM = 0,
>> + _MEMSWAP,
>> + _OOM_TYPE,
>> + _KMEM,
>> +};
>> +
>
> ok, nice clean up.
>
>
>> #define MEMFILE_PRIVATE(x, val) (((x)<< 16) | (val))
>> #define MEMFILE_TYPE(val) (((val)>> 16)& 0xffff)
>> #define MEMFILE_ATTR(val) ((val)& 0xffff)
>> @@ -3943,10 +3961,15 @@ static inline u64 mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *mem, bool swap)
>> u64 val;
>>
>> if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) {
>> + val = 0;
>> + if (!mem->kmem_independent)
>> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, RES_USAGE);
>
>> if (!swap)
>> - return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
>> + val += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
>> else
>> - return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> + val += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> +
>> + return val;
>> }
>>
>> val = mem_cgroup_recursive_stat(mem, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE);
>> @@ -3979,6 +4002,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
>> else
>> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name);
>> break;
>> + case _KMEM:
>> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name);
>> + break;
>> +
>> default:
>> BUG();
>> break;
>> @@ -4756,6 +4783,21 @@ static int mem_cgroup_reset_vmscan_stat(struct cgroup *cgrp,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> +static u64 kmem_limit_independent_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
>> +{
>> + return mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont)->kmem_independent;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int kmem_limit_independent_write(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
>> + u64 val)
>> +{
>> + cgroup_lock();
>> + mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont)->kmem_independent = !!val;
>> + cgroup_unlock();
>
> Hm. This code allows that parent/child can have different settings.
> Could you add parent-child check as..
>
> "If parent sets use_hierarchy==1, children must have the same kmem_independent value
> with parant's one."
>
> How do you think ? I think a hierarchy must have the same config.
BTW, Kame:
Look again (I forgot myself when I first replied to you)
Only in the root cgroup those files get registered.
So shouldn't be a problem, because children won't even
be able to see them.
Do you agree with this ?
>
> BTW...I don't like naming a little ;)
>
> memory->consolidated/shared/?????_kmem_accounting ?
> Or
> memory->kmem_independent_accounting ?
>
> or some better naming ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists