Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: proc: add Sock to /proc/meminfo

From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	rafael@kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
	gustavoars@kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
	Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	dave@stgolabs.net, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	chenqiwu@xiaomi.com, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: proc: add Sock to /proc/meminfo
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:29:44 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtWhnr9_m1HSnMt9QxcT_q8XCMvbsxv9ZgzXP9D8B0qLsQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXLX1xXN02idk-yU1T=AGb9JmGiLkfRGCJOxjCw-OWpfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:47 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:22 PM Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:39 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:39 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The amount of memory allocated to sockets buffer can become significant.
> > > > However, we do not display the amount of memory consumed by sockets
> > > > buffer. In this case, knowing where the memory is consumed by the kernel
> > >
> > > We do it via `ss -m`. Is it not sufficient? And if not, why not adding it there
> > > rather than /proc/meminfo?
> >
> > If the system has little free memory, we can know where the memory is via
> > /proc/meminfo. If a lot of memory is consumed by socket buffer, we cannot
> > know it when the Sock is not shown in the /proc/meminfo. If the unaware user
> > can't think of the socket buffer, naturally they will not `ss -m`. The
> > end result
>
> Interesting, we already have a few counters related to socket buffers,
> are you saying these are not accounted in /proc/meminfo either?

Yeah, these are not accounted for in /proc/meminfo.

> If yes, why are page frags so special here? If not, they are more
> important than page frags, so you probably want to deal with them
> first.
>
>
> > is that we still don’t know where the memory is consumed. And we add the
> > Sock to the /proc/meminfo just like the memcg does('sock' item in the cgroup
> > v2 memory.stat). So I think that adding to /proc/meminfo is sufficient.
>
> It looks like actually the socket page frag is already accounted,
> for example, the tcp_sendmsg_locked():
>
>                         copy = min_t(int, copy, pfrag->size - pfrag->offset);
>
>                         if (!sk_wmem_schedule(sk, copy))
>                                 goto wait_for_memory;
>

Yeah, it is already accounted for. But it does not represent real memory
usage. This is just the total amount of charged memory.

For example, if a task sends a 10-byte message, it only charges one
page to memcg. But the system may allocate 8 pages. Therefore, it
does not truly reflect the memory allocated by the page frag memory
allocation path.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >  static inline void __skb_frag_unref(skb_frag_t *frag)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       put_page(skb_frag_page(frag));
> > > > +       struct page *page = skb_frag_page(frag);
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (put_page_testzero(page)) {
> > > > +               dec_sock_node_page_state(page);
> > > > +               __put_page(page);
> > > > +       }
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > You mix socket page frag with skb frag at least, not sure this is exactly
> > > what you want, because clearly skb page frags are frequently used
> > > by network drivers rather than sockets.
> > >
> > > Also, which one matches this dec_sock_node_page_state()? Clearly
> > > not skb_fill_page_desc() or __skb_frag_ref().
> >
> > Yeah, we call inc_sock_node_page_state() in the skb_page_frag_refill().
>
> How is skb_page_frag_refill() possibly paired with __skb_frag_unref()?
>
> > So if someone gets the page returned by skb_page_frag_refill(), it must
> > put the page via __skb_frag_unref()/skb_frag_unref(). We use PG_private
> > to indicate that we need to dec the node page state when the refcount of
> > page reaches zero.
>
> skb_page_frag_refill() is called on frags not within an skb, for instance,
> sk_page_frag_refill() uses it for a per-socket or per-process page frag.
> But, __skb_frag_unref() is specifically used for skb frags, which are
> supposed to be filled by skb_fill_page_desc() (page is allocated by driver).
>
> They are different things you are mixing them up, which looks clearly
> wrong or at least misleading.

Yeah, it looks a little strange. I just want to account for page frag
allocations. So I have to use PG_private to distinguish the page
from page frag or others in the __skb_frag_unref(). If the page is
allocated from skb_page_frag_refill, we should decrease the
statistics.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks.

-- 
Yours,
Muchun