Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg
| Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg [message #46737 is a reply to message #46517] |
Thu, 07 June 2012 10:26   |
Frederic Weisbecker
Messages: 25
Registered: April 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
> all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
>
> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
> 2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
> fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
>
> I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
> I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
> please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
> and I'll rebase it.
>
> I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
> are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
> until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
> the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
>
> I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
> of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
> the work allows to.
So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
I need to work on top of your patchset.
What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.
Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
(as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.
The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
kind of finegrained kmem accounting.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg [message #46738 is a reply to message #46737] |
Thu, 07 June 2012 10:53 |
Glauber Costa
Messages: 916
Registered: October 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 06/07/2012 02:26 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
>> all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
>>
>> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
>> 2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
>> fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
>>
>> I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
>> I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
>> please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
>> and I'll rebase it.
>>
>> I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
>> are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
>> until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
>> the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
>>
>> I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
>> of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
>> the work allows to.
>
> So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
> I need to work on top of your patchset.
>
> What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
> For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.
>
> Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
> (as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
> kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
> done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
> on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.
>
> The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
> kind of finegrained kmem accounting.
>
> Thoughts?
I believe a general separation is too much, and will lead to knob
explosion. So I don't think it is a good idea.
Now, for the stack itself, it can be justified. The question that
remains to be answered is:
Why do you need to set the stack value separately? Isn't accounting the
stack value, and limiting against the global kmem limit enough?
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg [message #46739 is a reply to message #46738] |
Thu, 07 June 2012 14:00 |
Frederic Weisbecker
Messages: 25
Registered: April 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:53:07PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 02:26 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>Hello All,
> >>
> >>This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
> >>all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
> >>
> >>At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
> >>2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
> >>fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
> >>
> >>I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
> >>I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
> >>please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
> >>and I'll rebase it.
> >>
> >>I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
> >>are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
> >>until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
> >>the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
> >>
> >>I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
> >>of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
> >>the work allows to.
> >
> >So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
> >I need to work on top of your patchset.
> >
> >What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
> >For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.
> >
> >Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
> >(as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
> >kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
> >done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
> >on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.
> >
> >The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
> >kind of finegrained kmem accounting.
> >
> >Thoughts?
>
> I believe a general separation is too much, and will lead to knob
> explosion. So I don't think it is a good idea.
Right. This could be an option in kmem_cache_create() or something.
>
> Now, for the stack itself, it can be justified. The question that
> remains to be answered is:
>
> Why do you need to set the stack value separately? Isn't accounting
> the stack value, and limiting against the global kmem limit enough?
Well, I may want to let my container have a full access to some kmem
resources (net, file, etc...) but defend against fork bombs or NR_PROC
rlimit exhaustion of other containers.
So I need to be able to set my limit precisely on kstack.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg [message #46793 is a reply to message #46739] |
Thu, 14 June 2012 02:24 |
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Messages: 463
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
(2012/06/07 23:00), Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:53:07PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 02:26 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
>>>> all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
>>>> 2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
>>>> fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
>>>>
>>>> I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
>>>> I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
>>>> please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
>>>> and I'll rebase it.
>>>>
>>>> I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
>>>> are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
>>>> until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
>>>> the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
>>>>
>>>> I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
>>>> of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
>>>> the work allows to.
>>>
>>> So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
>>> I need to work on top of your patchset.
>>>
>>> What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
>>> For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.
>>>
>>> Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
>>> (as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
>>> kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
>>> done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
>>> on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.
>>>
>>> The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
>>> kind of finegrained kmem accounting.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I believe a general separation is too much, and will lead to knob
>> explosion. So I don't think it is a good idea.
>
> Right. This could be an option in kmem_cache_create() or something.
>
>>
>> Now, for the stack itself, it can be justified. The question that
>> remains to be answered is:
>>
>> Why do you need to set the stack value separately? Isn't accounting
>> the stack value, and limiting against the global kmem limit enough?
>
> Well, I may want to let my container have a full access to some kmem
> resources (net, file, etc...) but defend against fork bombs or NR_PROC
> rlimit exhaustion of other containers.
>
> So I need to be able to set my limit precisely on kstack.
You explained that the limitation is necessary for fork-bomb, and the bad
point of fork-bomb is that it can cause OOM. So, the problem is OOM not fork-bomb.
If the problem is OOM, IIUC, generic kernel memory limiting will work better than
kernel stack limiting.
Thanks,
-Kame
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Oct 14 18:00:43 GMT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05591 seconds
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
