netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to mem_cgroup_charge

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: <20221013041833.rhifxw4gqwk4ofi2@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 04:18:33 +0000
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to mem_cgroup_charge_skmem()

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 09:04:59PM -0700, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 8:49 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:34:00 -0700 Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > I pushed this little nugget to one affected machine via KLP:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > index 03ffbb255e60..c1ca369a1b77 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > @@ -7121,6 +7121,10 @@ bool mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
> > > >                 return true;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > +       if (gfp_mask == GFP_NOWAIT) {
> > > > +               try_charge(memcg, gfp_mask|__GFP_NOFAIL, nr_pages);
> > > > +               refill_stock(memcg, nr_pages);
> > > > +       }
> > > >         return false;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > AFAICT, if you force charge by passing __GFP_NOFAIL to try_charge(),
> > > you should return true to tell the caller that the nr_pages is
> > > actually being charged.
> >
> > Ack - not sure what the best thing to do is, tho. Always pass NOFAIL
> > in softirq?
> >
> > It's not clear to me yet why doing the charge/uncharge actually helps,
> > perhaps try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() does more when NOFAIL is passed?
> >
> I am curious to know as well.
> 
> > I'll do more digging tomorrow.
> >
> > > Although I am not very sure what refill_stock() does. Does that
> > > "uncharge" those pages?
> >
> > I think so, I copied it from mem_cgroup_uncharge_skmem().

I think I understand why this issue start happening after this patch.
The memcg charging happens in batches of 32 (64 nowadays) pages even
if the charge request is less. The remaining pre-charge is cached in
the per-cpu cache (or stock).

With (GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOFAIL), you let the memcg go over the limit
without triggering oom-kill and then refill_stock just put the
pre-charge in the per-cpu cache. So, the later allocation/charge succeed
from the per-cpu cache even though memcg is over the limit.

So, with this patch we no longer force charge and then uncharge on
failure, so the later allocation/charge fail similarly.

Regarding what is the right thing to do, IMHO, is to use GFP_ATOMIC
instead of GFP_NOWAIT. If you see the following comment in
try_charge_memcg(), we added this exception particularly for these kind
of situations.

...
	/*
	 * Memcg doesn't have a dedicated reserve for atomic
	 * allocations. But like the global atomic pool, we need to
	 * put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
	 * and let these go through as privileged allocations.
	 */
	if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH)))
		return -ENOMEM;
...

Shakeel