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  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]
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:29:18 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<paul@...lmenage.org>, <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	<gthelen@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kirill@...temov.name>,
	<avagin@...allels.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory
 Controller

On 12/14/2011 09:04 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Now with the current patch version, I hope]
>
> On Mon 12-12-11 11:47:01, Glauber Costa 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
>
> Maybe has been already discussed but the name is rather awkward and it
> would deserve more clarification. It is independent in the way that it
> doesn't add up to the standard (user) allocations or it enables/disables
> accounting?

If turned on, it doesn't add up to the user allocations.
As for the name, this is marked experimental, so I don't think anyone 
will be relying on it for a while. We can change it, if you have a 
better suggestion.

>>   * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes (currently ignored)
>
> What happens if we reach the limit? Are all kernel allocations
> considered or only selected caches? How do I find out which are those?
>
> AFAIU you have implemented it for network buffers at this stage but I
> guess that dentries will follow...

Further allocations should fail.

About other caches, tcp is a bit different because we are concerned with 
conditions that applies after the allocation already took place. It is 
not clear to me if we will treat the other caches as a single entity, or 
separate them.

>>   * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes (always zero)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>
>> CC: Kirill A. Shutemov<kirill@...temov.name>
>> CC: Paul Menage<paul@...lmenage.org>
>> CC: Greg Thelen<gthelen@...gle.com>
>> CC: Johannes Weiner<jweiner@...hat.com>
>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@...e.cz>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt |   40 ++++++++++++++-
>>   init/Kconfig                     |   11 ++++
>>   mm/memcontrol.c                  |  105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   3 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> index cc0ebc5..f245324 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
>
> Hugepages are not
> Anyway this sounds outdated as we track both THP and hugetlb, right?
>
>> + controls, we have to take care of performance. Kernel memory support is work
>> + in progress, and the current version provides basically functionality.
>
> s/basically/basic/
>
>>
>>   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
>> +
>
> It is not clear what happens in enabled/disabled cases. Let's say they
> are not independent. Does it form a single limit with user charges or it
> toggles kmem charging on/off.
>
>>   1. History
>>
>>   The memory controller has a long history. A request for comments for the memory
>> @@ -255,6 +262,35 @@ 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.
>> +
>> +Some kernel memory resources may be accounted and limited separately from the
>> +main "kmem" resource. For instance, a slab cache that is considered important
>> +enough to be limited separately may have its own knobs.
>
> How do you tell which are those that are accounted to the "main kmem"?

Besides being in this list, they should have they own files, like tcp.
>
>> +
>> +Kernel memory limits are not imposed for the root cgroup. Usage for the root
>> +cgroup may or may not be accounted.
>> +
>> +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.
>
> Separately from user space allocations, right?
Yes.
> What happens if we reach the limit in both cases?
For kernel memory, further allocations should fail.

>
>> @@ -344,9 +353,14 @@ 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,
>> +};
>> +
>
> Probably in a separate (cleanup) patch?
>
>>   #define MEMFILE_PRIVATE(x, val)	(((x)<<  16) | (val))
>>   #define MEMFILE_TYPE(val)	(((val)>>  16)&  0xffff)
>>   #define MEMFILE_ATTR(val)	((val)&  0xffff)
>> @@ -3848,10 +3862,17 @@ static inline u64 mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool swap)
>>   	u64 val;
>>
>>   	if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) {
>> +		val = 0;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> +		if (!memcg->kmem_independent_accounting)
>> +			val = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->kmem, RES_USAGE);
>> +#endif
>>   		if (!swap)
>> -			return res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_USAGE);
>> +			val += res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_USAGE);
>>   		else
>> -			return res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> +			val += res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> +
>> +		return val;
>>   	}
>
> So you report kmem+user but we do not consider kmem during charge so one
> can easily end up with usage_in_bytes over limit but no reclaim is going
> on. Not good, I would say.
>
> OK, so to sum it up. The biggest problem I see is the (non)independent
> accounting. We simply cannot mix user+kernel limits otherwise we would
> see issues (like kernel resource hog would force memcg-oom and innocent
> members would die because their rss is much bigger).
> It is also not clear to me what should happen when we hit the kmem
> limit. I guess it will be kmem cache dependent.

So right now, tcp is completely independent, since it is not accounted 
to kmem. In summary, we still never do non-independent accounting. When 
we start doing it for the other caches, We will have to add a test at 
charge time as well.

We still need to keep it separate though, in case the independent flag 
is turned on/off

--
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