From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
"Wangkai (Kevin C)" <wangkai86@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:19:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180709081920.GD22049@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1530905572-817-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
On Fri 06-07-18 15:32:45, Waiman Long wrote:
[...]
> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> is not under the direct control of a memory controller that enforce
> kernel memory limit.
How does this differ from other untracked allocations for untrusted
tasks in general? E.g. nothing really prevents a task to create a long
chain of unreclaimable dentries and even go to OOM potentially. Negative
dentries should be easily reclaimable on the other hand. So why does the
later needs a special treatment while the first one is ok? There are
quite some resources which allow a non privileged user to consume a lot
of memory and the memory controller is the only reliable way to mitigate
the risk.
> This patchset introduces changes to the dcache subsystem to track and
> optionally limit the number of negative dentries allowed to be created by
> background pruning of excess negative dentries or even kill it after use.
> This capability will help to limit the amount of memory that can be
> consumed by negative dentries.
How are you going to balance that between workload? What prevents a
rogue application to simply consume the limit and force all others in
the system to go slow path?
> Patch 1 tracks the number of negative dentries present in the LRU
> lists and reports it in /proc/sys/fs/dentry-state.
If anything I _think_ vmstat would benefit from this because behavior of
the memory reclaim does depend on the amount of neg. dentries.
> Patch 2 adds a "neg-dentry-pc" sysctl parameter that can be used to to
> specify a soft limit on the number of negative allowed as a percentage
> of total system memory. This parameter is 0 by default which means no
> negative dentry limiting will be performed.
percentage has turned out to be a really wrong unit for many tunables
over time. Even 1% can be just too much on really large machines.
> Patch 3 enables automatic pruning of least recently used negative
> dentries when the total number is close to the preset limit.
Please explain why this cannot be done in a standard dcache shrinking
way. I strongly suspect that you are developing yet another reclaim with
its own sets of tunable and bypassing the existing infrastructure. I
haven't read patches yet but the cover letter doesn't really explain
design much so I am only guessing.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-09 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-06 19:32 [PATCH v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 1/7] fs/dcache: Track & report number " Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 2/7] fs/dcache: Add sysctl parameter neg-dentry-pc as a soft limit on " Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 3/7] fs/dcache: Enable automatic pruning of " Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 4/7] fs/dcache: Spread negative dentry pruning across multiple CPUs Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 5/7] fs/dcache: Add negative dentries to LRU head initially Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 6/7] fs/dcache: Allow optional enforcement of negative dentry limit Waiman Long
2018-07-06 19:32 ` [PATCH v6 7/7] fs/dcache: Allow deconfiguration of negative dentry code to reduce kernel size Waiman Long
2018-07-06 21:54 ` Eric Biggers
2018-07-06 22:28 ` [PATCH v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries Al Viro
2018-07-07 3:02 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-09 8:19 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-07-09 16:01 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-10 14:27 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-10 16:09 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-11 10:21 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-11 15:13 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-11 17:42 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-11 19:07 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-11 19:21 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-12 15:54 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-12 16:04 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-12 16:26 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-12 17:33 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-13 15:32 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-12 16:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-07-12 17:21 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-12 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-12 19:57 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-13 0:36 ` Dave Chinner
2018-07-13 15:46 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-13 23:17 ` Dave Chinner
2018-07-16 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-16 14:42 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-16 9:09 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-16 9:12 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-16 12:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-07-16 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-17 1:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-07-17 8:33 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-19 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2018-07-19 8:45 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-19 9:13 ` Jan Kara
2018-07-18 18:39 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-18 16:17 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-19 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-12 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-12 16:12 ` Waiman Long
2018-07-12 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180709081920.GD22049@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wangkai86@huawei.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).