netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller

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: <4EEB417B.8000508@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:02:51 +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 12/16/2011 04:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 15-12-11 16:29:18, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> 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:
> [...]
>>>> @@ -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.
>
> I find this a problem and one of the reason I do not like !independent
> accounting.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> So why do we need kmem accounting when tcp (the only user at the moment)
> doesn't use it?

Well, a bit historical. I needed a basic placeholder for it, since it 
tcp is officially kmem. As the time passed, I took most of the stuff out 
of this patch to leave just the basics I would need for tcp.
Turns out I ended up focusing on the rest, and some of the stuff was 
left here.

At one point I merged tcp data into kmem, but then reverted this 
behavior. the kmem counter stayed.

I agree deferring the whole behavior would be better.

>> 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.
>
> So we shouldn't do it as a part of this patchset because the further
> usage is not clear and I think there will be some real issues with
> user+kmem accounting (e.g. a proper memcg-oom implementation).
> Can you just drop this patch?

Yes, but the whole set is in the net tree already. (All other patches 
are tcp-related but this) Would you mind if I'd send a follow up patch 
removing the kmem files, and leaving just the registration functions and 
basic documentation? (And sorry for that as well in advance)

>> We still need to keep it separate though, in case the independent
>> flag is turned on/off
>
> I don't mind to have kmem.tcp.* knobs.
>

--
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