Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg

[Eric W. Biederman]

Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 01 May 2018 12:35:16 -0500
> ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>> Recently it was reported that mm_update_next_owner could get into
>> cases where it was executing it's fallback for_each_process part of
>> the loop and thus taking up a lot of time.
>> 
>> To deal with this replace mm->owner with mm->memcg.  This just reduces
>> the complexity of everything.  As much as possible I have maintained
>> the current semantics.  There are two siginificant exceptions.  During
>> fork the memcg of the process calling fork is charged rather than
>> init_css_set.  During memory cgroup migration the charges are migrated
>> not if the process is the owner of the mm, but if the process being
>> migrated has the same memory cgroup as the mm.
>> 
>> I believe it was a bug if init_css_set is charged for memory activity
>> during fork, and the old behavior was simply a consequence of the new
>> task not having tsk->cgroup not initialized to it's proper cgroup.
>
> That does sound like a bug, I guess we've not seen it because we did
> not track any slab allocations initially.


>> Durhing cgroup migration only thread group leaders are allowed to
>> migrate.  Which means in practice there should only be one.  Linux
>> tasks created with CLONE_VM are the only exception, but the common
>> cases are already ruled out.  Processes created with vfork have a
>> suspended parent and can do nothing but call exec so they should never
>> show up.  Threads of the same cgroup are not the thread group leader
>> so also should not show up.  That leaves the old LinuxThreads library
>> which is probably out of use by now, and someone doing something very
>> creative with cgroups, and rolling their own threads with CLONE_VM.
>> So in practice I don't think the difference charge migration will
>> affect anyone.
>> 
>> To ensure that mm->memcg is updated appropriately I have implemented
>> cgroup "attach" and "fork" methods.  This ensures that at those
>> points the mm pointed to the task has the appropriate memory cgroup.
>> 
>> For simplicity instead of introducing a new mm lock I simply use
>> exchange on the pointer where the mm->memcg is updated to get
>> atomic updates.
>> 
>> Looking at the history effectively this change is a revert.  The
>> reason given for adding mm->owner is so that multiple cgroups can be
>> attached to the same mm.  In the last 8 years a second user of
>> mm->owner has not appeared.  A feature that has never used, makes the
>> code more complicated and has horrible worst case performance should
>> go.
>
> The idea was to track the mm to the right cgroup, we did find that
> the mm could be confused as belonging to two cgroups. tsk->cgroup is
> not sufficient and if when the tgid left, we needed an owner to track
> where the current allocations were. But this is from 8 year old history,
> I don't have my notes anymore :)

I was referring to the change 8ish years ago where mm->memcg was
replaced with mm->owner.  Semantically the two concepts should both
be perfectly capable of resolving which cgroup the mm belongs to.

>> +static void mem_cgroup_attach(struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
>> +{
>> +	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
>> +
>> +	cgroup_taskset_for_each(tsk, css, tset) {
>> +		struct mem_cgroup *new = mem_cgroup_from_css(css);
>> +		css_get(css);
>> +		task_update_memcg(tsk, new);
>
> I'd have to go back and check and I think your comment refers to this,
> but we don't expect non tgid tasks to show up here? My concern is I can't
> find the guaratee that task_update_memcg(tsk, new) is not
>
> 1. Duplicated for each thread in the process or attached to the mm
> 2. Do not update mm->memcg to point to different places, so the one
> that sticks is the one that updated things last.

For cgroupv2 which only operates on processes we have such a guarantee.

There is no such guarantee for cgroupv1.  But it would take someone
being crazy to try this.

We can add a guarantee to can_attach that we move all of the threads in
a process, and we probably should.  However having mm->memcg is more
important structurally than what crazy we let in.  So let's make this
change first as safely as we can, and then we don't loose important
data structure simplications if it turns out we have to revert a change
to make the memcgroup per process in cgroupv1.


There are some serious issues with the intereactions between the memory
control group and the concept of thread group leader, that show up when
you consider a zombie thread group leader that has called cgroup_exit.
So I am not anxious to stir in concepts like thread_group_leader into
new code unless there is a very good reason.

We don't exepect crazy but the code allows it, and I have not changed
that.

Eric