Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki]

(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


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/