Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix network errors from failing __GFP_ATOMIC charges

From: Michal Hocko
Date: Thu Oct 24 2019 - 04:14:50 EST

On Wed 23-10-19 10:38:36, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:46 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:40:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On the other hand this would allow to break the isolation by an
> > > unpredictable amount. Should we put a simple cap on how much we can go
> > > over the limit. If the memcg limit reclaim is not able to keep up with
> > > those overflows then even __GFP_ATOMIC allocations have to fail. What do
> > > you think?
> >
> > I don't expect a big overrun in practice, and it appears that Google
> > has been letting even NOWAIT allocations pass through without
> > isolation issues.
> We have been overcharging for __GFP_HIGH allocations for couple of
> years and see no isolation issues in the production.
> > Likewise, we have been force-charging the skmem for
> > a while now and it hasn't been an issue for reclaim to keep up.
> >
> > My experience from production is that it's a whole lot easier to debug
> > something like a memory.max overrun than it is to debug a machine that
> > won't respond to networking. So that's the side I would err on.

It is definitely good to hear that your production systems are working well.
I was not really worried about normal workloads but rather malicious
kind of (work)loads where memcg is used to contain a potentially untrusted
entities. That's where an unbounded atomic charges escapes would be a
much bigger deal. Maybe this is not the case now because we do not
have that many accounted __GFP_ATOMIC requests (I have tried to audit
but gave up very shortly afterwards because there are not that many
using __GFP_ACCOUNT directly so they are likely hidden behind
SLAB_ACCOUNT). But I do not really like that uncertainty.

If you have a really strong opinion on an explicit limit then I
would like to see at least some warning to the kernel log so that we
learn when some workloads hit a pathological paths that and act upon
that. Does that sound like something you would agree to?

E.g. something like

diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c
index de31470655f6..e6999f6cf79e 100644
--- a/mm/page_counter.c
+++ b/mm/page_counter.c
@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ void page_counter_cancel(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages)
WARN_ON_ONCE(new < 0);

+#define SAFE_OVERFLOW 1024
* page_counter_charge - hierarchically charge pages
* @counter: counter
@@ -82,8 +84,14 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages)
* This is indeed racy, but we can live with some
* inaccuracy in the watermark.
- if (new > c->watermark)
+ if (new > c->watermark) {
c->watermark = new;
+ if (new > c->max + SAFE_OVERFLOW) {
+ pr_warn("Max limit %lu breached, usage:%lu. Please report.\n",
+ c->max, atomic_long_read(&c->usage);
+ dump_stack();
+ }
+ }

Michal Hocko