lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations (v2)
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> Changelog v2
>>> ------------
>>> Change the accounting to what is already present in the kernel. Split
>>> the address space accounting into mem_cgroup_charge_as and
>>> mem_cgroup_uncharge_as. At the time of VM expansion, call
>>> mem_cgroup_cannot_expand_as to check if the new allocation will push
>>> us over the limit
>>>
>>> This patch implements accounting and control of virtual address space.
>>> Accounting is done when the virtual address space of any task/mm_struct
>>> belonging to the cgroup is incremented or decremented. This patch
>>> fails the expansion if the cgroup goes over its limit.
>>>
>>> TODOs
>>>
>>> 1. Only when CONFIG_MMU is enabled, is the virtual address space control
>>> enabled. Should we do this for nommu cases as well? My suspicion is
>>> that we don't have to.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c | 2 +
>>> arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c | 7 +++
>>> fs/exec.c | 2 +
>>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 26 +++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/res_counter.h | 19 ++++++++--
>>> init/Kconfig | 2 -
>>> kernel/fork.c | 17 +++++++--
>>> mm/memcontrol.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> mm/mmap.c | 11 +++++
>>> mm/mremap.c | 2 +
>>> 10 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff -puN mm/memcontrol.c~memory-controller-virtual-address-space-accounting-and-control mm/memcontrol.c
>>> --- linux-2.6.25-rc5/mm/memcontrol.c~memory-controller-virtual-address-space-accounting-and-control 2008-03-26 16:27:59.000000000 +0530
>>> +++ linux-2.6.25-rc5-balbir/mm/memcontrol.c 2008-03-27 00:18:16.000000000 +0530
>>> @@ -526,6 +526,76 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_isolate_pages(u
>>> return nr_taken;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_AS
>>> +/*
>>> + * Charge the address space usage for cgroup. This routine is most
>>> + * likely to be called from places that expand the total_vm of a mm_struct.
>>> + */
>>> +void mem_cgroup_charge_as(struct mm_struct *mm, long nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>>> +
>>> + if (mem_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + mem = rcu_dereference(mm->mem_cgroup);
>>> + css_get(&mem->css);
>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +
>>> + res_counter_charge(&mem->as_res, (nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
>>> + css_put(&mem->css);
>> Why don't you check whether the counter is charged? This is
>> bad for two reasons:
>> 1. you allow for some growth above the limit (e.g. in expand_stack)
>
> I was doing that earlier and then decided to keep the virtual address space code
> in sync with the RLIMIT_AS checking code in the kernel. If you see the flow, it
> closely resembles what we do with mm->total_vm and may_expand_vm().
> expand_stack() in turn calls acct_stack_growth() which calls may_expand_vm()

But this is racy! Look - you do expand_stack on two CPUs and the limit is
almost reached - so that there's room for a single expansion. In this case
may_expand_vm will return true for both, since it only checks the limit,
while the subsequent charge will fail on one of them, since it actually
tries to raise the usage...

>> 2. you will undercharge it in the future when uncharging the
>> vme, whose charge was failed and thus unaccounted.
>
> Hmmm... This should ideally never happen, since we do a may_expand_vm() before
> expanding the VM and in our case the virtual address space usage. I've not seen
> it during my runs either. But it is something to keep in mind.
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-27 09:27    [W:0.071 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site