From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C52C0650F for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 20:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E012173E for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 20:23:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565295793; bh=RHraHwfrbwkREg74Xy9SOBTOzh4EzmM+GX9f7LiI4tg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=AQvcs3wtlG7pxY3FiPTvTNjHsDfe+wIGn692Lj721z2fH8KyA4U/JF5l4K91e9kZt fsSr/kcmSY1HdXaeTs7aanz9BY4NxwMKrYkK8P5L+Al2FRahc6rUuMLDqPdBesZ1QX Bl5e7S5kt4JjYR0POFB0neEoN9S/r7dmLfGW/1As= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404909AbfHHUXM (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:23:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36016 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404588AbfHHUXL (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:23:11 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.112] (c-24-9-64-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net [24.9.64.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DE1C2173C; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 20:23:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565295790; bh=RHraHwfrbwkREg74Xy9SOBTOzh4EzmM+GX9f7LiI4tg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Sv3ezScU40/zyzSwPkXgXdl2Zfpk274kLgsFqRrBhADRQrvgV8spmG+hFWG1IoYWT Pbp2ldUVK7N9APpheUobyrSNhYkO7tImql2TTefGzCTJJ5SKTkMgTlB32mCMLnkk8a RywI5Y4D5/UX4eBw5YX0L4x6Q7BQPy92DbnCOaC8= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hugetlbfs: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits To: Mina Almasry , mike.kravetz@oracle.com Cc: rientjes@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, gthelen@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khalid.aziz@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah References: <20190808194002.226688-1-almasrymina@google.com> From: shuah Message-ID: <528b37c6-3e7a-c6fc-a322-beecb89011a5@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:23:08 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190808194002.226688-1-almasrymina@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/8/19 1:40 PM, Mina Almasry wrote: > Problem: > Currently tasks attempting to allocate more hugetlb memory than is available get > a failure at mmap/shmget time. This is thanks to Hugetlbfs Reservations [1]. > However, if a task attempts to allocate hugetlb memory only more than its > hugetlb_cgroup limit allows, the kernel will allow the mmap/shmget call, > but will SIGBUS the task when it attempts to fault the memory in. > > We have developers interested in using hugetlb_cgroups, and they have expressed > dissatisfaction regarding this behavior. We'd like to improve this > behavior such that tasks violating the hugetlb_cgroup limits get an error on > mmap/shmget time, rather than getting SIGBUS'd when they try to fault > the excess memory in. > > The underlying problem is that today's hugetlb_cgroup accounting happens > at hugetlb memory *fault* time, rather than at *reservation* time. > Thus, enforcing the hugetlb_cgroup limit only happens at fault time, and > the offending task gets SIGBUS'd. > > Proposed Solution: > A new page counter named hugetlb.xMB.reservation_[limit|usage]_in_bytes. This > counter has slightly different semantics than > hugetlb.xMB.[limit|usage]_in_bytes: > > - While usage_in_bytes tracks all *faulted* hugetlb memory, > reservation_usage_in_bytes tracks all *reserved* hugetlb memory. > > - If a task attempts to reserve more memory than limit_in_bytes allows, > the kernel will allow it to do so. But if a task attempts to reserve > more memory than reservation_limit_in_bytes, the kernel will fail this > reservation. > > This proposal is implemented in this patch, with tests to verify > functionality and show the usage. > > Alternatives considered: > 1. A new cgroup, instead of only a new page_counter attached to > the existing hugetlb_cgroup. Adding a new cgroup seemed like a lot of code > duplication with hugetlb_cgroup. Keeping hugetlb related page counters under > hugetlb_cgroup seemed cleaner as well. > > 2. Instead of adding a new counter, we considered adding a sysctl that modifies > the behavior of hugetlb.xMB.[limit|usage]_in_bytes, to do accounting at > reservation time rather than fault time. Adding a new page_counter seems > better as userspace could, if it wants, choose to enforce different cgroups > differently: one via limit_in_bytes, and another via > reservation_limit_in_bytes. This could be very useful if you're > transitioning how hugetlb memory is partitioned on your system one > cgroup at a time, for example. Also, someone may find usage for both > limit_in_bytes and reservation_limit_in_bytes concurrently, and this > approach gives them the option to do so. > > Caveats: > 1. This support is implemented for cgroups-v1. I have not tried > hugetlb_cgroups with cgroups v2, and AFAICT it's not supported yet. > This is largely because we use cgroups-v1 for now. If required, I > can add hugetlb_cgroup support to cgroups v2 in this patch or > a follow up. > 2. Most complicated bit of this patch I believe is: where to store the > pointer to the hugetlb_cgroup to uncharge at unreservation time? > Normally the cgroup pointers hang off the struct page. But, with > hugetlb_cgroup reservations, one task can reserve a specific page and another > task may fault it in (I believe), so storing the pointer in struct > page is not appropriate. Proposed approach here is to store the pointer in > the resv_map. See patch for details. > > [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/vm/hugetlbfs_reserv.html > > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry > --- > include/linux/hugetlb.h | 10 +- > include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h | 19 +- > mm/hugetlb.c | 256 ++++++++-- > mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c | 153 +++++- Is there a reason why all these changes are in a single patch? I can see these split in at least 2 or 3 patches with the test as a separate patch. Makes it lot easier to review. thanks, -- Shuah