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)
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> 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...
>

Hmm... yes, possibly. Thanks for pointing this out. For a single mm_struct, the
check is done under mmap_sem(), so it's OK for processes. I suspect, I'll have
to go back to what I had earlier. I don't want to add a mutex to mem_cgroup,
that will hurt parallelism badly.

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-27 09:37    [W:0.040 / U:1.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site