From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Cc: mike.kravetz@oracle.com, shuah@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com,
gthelen@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mkoutny@suse.com,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation counter
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:45:41 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001131624240.164268@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217231615.164161-1-almasrymina@google.com>
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Mina Almasry wrote:
> These counters will track hugetlb reservations rather than hugetlb
> memory faulted in. This patch only adds the counter, following patches
> add the charging and uncharging of the counter.
>
> This is patch 1 of an 8 patch series.
>
> 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.
>
I think it's subtle, but the use of the word "allocate" instead of using
"reserve" might be confusing here. Might want to reword it.
> 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.
>
I'm not sure the developers are interested in being restricted by
hugetlb_cgroups :) I think users get constrained by hugetlb_cgroup so the
developers are interested in the failure more: do we want to SIGBUS at
fault and not be allowed an opportunity to influence that (today) or do we
want to fallback to non-hugetlbfs memory and just keep going (tomorrow,
after your patchset).
> 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:
>
Is there a max_usage_in_bytes equivalent? It's a page_counter so I assume
it's easy to support.
I'll defer the naming to Mike here, "rsvd" seems to be the hugetlb way of
saying "reserved".
> - While usage_in_bytes tracks all *faulted* hugetlb memory,
> reservation_usage_in_bytes tracks all *reserved* hugetlb memory and
> hugetlb memory faulted in without a prior reservation.
>
> - 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 series, with tests to verify
> functionality and show the usage. We also added cgroup-v2 support to
> hugetlb_cgroup so that the new use cases can be extended to v2.
>
> 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.
>
> Testing:
> - Added tests passing.
> - Used libhugetlbfs for regression testing.
>
> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/vm/hugetlbfs_reserv.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-17 23:16 [PATCH v9 1/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation counter Mina Almasry
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 2/8] hugetlb_cgroup: add interface for charge/uncharge hugetlb reservations Mina Almasry
2020-01-13 22:14 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-14 0:45 ` David Rientjes
2020-01-14 22:55 ` Mina Almasry
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 3/8] hugetlb_cgroup: add reservation accounting for private mappings Mina Almasry
2020-01-14 0:55 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-14 22:52 ` Mina Almasry
2020-01-17 22:09 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-22 21:40 ` Mina Almasry
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 4/8] hugetlb: disable region_add file_region coalescing Mina Almasry
2020-01-21 17:38 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-21 17:40 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 5/8] hugetlb_cgroup: add accounting for shared mappings Mina Almasry
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 6/8] hugetlb_cgroup: support noreserve mappings Mina Almasry
2020-01-14 0:48 ` David Rientjes
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 7/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation tests Mina Almasry
2019-12-17 23:16 ` [PATCH v9 8/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation docs Mina Almasry
2020-01-14 0:54 ` David Rientjes
2019-12-19 1:12 ` [PATCH v9 1/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation counter Andrew Morton
2019-12-19 1:37 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-12-19 1:59 ` Mina Almasry
2020-01-13 18:43 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-13 21:03 ` Mina Almasry
2020-01-13 22:05 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-13 22:21 ` Mina Almasry
2020-01-14 0:45 ` David Rientjes [this message]
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.2001131624240.164268@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=almasrymina@google.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.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).