Re: [PATCH] oom: handle overflow in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:32:04 -0800
Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > That being said, does this have any practical impact at all?  I mean,
> > this code runs when the cgroup limit is breached.  But if the number
> > of allowed pages (not bytes!) can not fit into 32 bits, it means you
> > have a group of processes using more than 16T.  On a 32-bit machine.
> 
> The value of this patch is up for debate.  I do not have an example
> situation where this truncation causes the wrong thing to happen.  I
> suppose it might be possible for a racing update to
> memory.limit_in_bytes which grows the limit from a reasonable (example:
> 100M) limit to a large limit (example 1<<45) could benefit from this
> patch.  I admit that this case seems pathological and may not be likely
> or even worth bothering over.  If neither the memcg nor the oom
> maintainers want the patch, then feel free to drop it.  I just noticed
> the issue and thought it might be worth addressing.

Ah.  I was scratching my head over that.

In zillions of places the kernel assumes that a 32-bit kernel has less
than 2^32 pages of memory, so the code as it stands is, umm, idiomatic.

But afaict the only way the patch makes a real-world difference is if
res_counter_read_u64() is busted?

And, as you point out, res_counter_read_u64() is indeed busted on
32-bit machines.  It has 25 callsites in mm/memcontrol.c - has anyone
looked at the implications of this?  What happens in all those
callsites if the counter is read during a count rollover?

--
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/