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=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no 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 27003C41517 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA152217F4 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="KalgEU89" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404433AbfHHV3M (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 17:29:12 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com ([209.85.210.66]:45601 "EHLO mail-ot1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2403940AbfHHV3L (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 17:29:11 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id x21so31293655otq.12 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DzaZFkNgePDlVaXLESVKlCNNCGSeU4vRw8is94V5UdA=; b=KalgEU890W2v3tdxmH2d7QO3pSxS/bg4+84+pquKaYaO7PNVW3CsGLHZm1QndUrNeZ Kes6GlrYRGfs39qNLpaAgPALwmTqr8BKMMDL5YAXSUayczbCfJxZvC8USF5mL1RKr9Sa eRAaFlqu14/WjkMYqOYUArE0eXX4bUHL0XyNPJl7FJW+2B2PgpuY+2Wdnir2QC1oGtI0 dQ41Y0PXBN3BlV82y7AA5w0ORAvn6hNVFoAThakwZ8ytbFoZkjLxwp4YHOk8JYbHk2BI hbfDika9QTq8x7qLymoedawkBjxAXrS54uUhsJGvcAM/+Jd3EOiC5gLCctXcL7jWI7Du +VHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DzaZFkNgePDlVaXLESVKlCNNCGSeU4vRw8is94V5UdA=; b=ZG/9bbDyMih4Qkzazugrfq9D/7lHEC3ojNpcsorsm5LF0TSOECqSiHRh+WtuvLaLQI xa8apIfFZhvwgzfMUKBepSifmXtQ3stAebaumrwlC7WIf5u0EKe+zCjGHZIxnG9M3v8z vhuaJPhan6tDPabNM8pPindTpvZOdrd59mS7eWrKUoLs/SmNRFeSMsQSgeDrc986D/iU vNdYn5lkRD8C3Lp0WfvPFNi0CLd9dZZIH9Sp2uUASjjE4vw8wS/vT36r4hzFvHYBj6zp hkJFhPO8RQhbrBbcGY8kwyu1g3VSCIbVIwvKf1iI6gDC8f5BGwUyWIyWw6hXYPeGTLc1 i9Ng== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6onK9+hZKZd3GNxFt/bMU3t2nO/dZ8WD0SwUOuRtetZCpk93t dm2JMk2xCNmVuWuiNAE3ilFSV07kovNkAFWrL3ZvTQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzoPupi/hlxnLQxtV5HHOP2zFDbWqQf5PEzMQj2ePkR0PAEk3t0ZRroKEvH5zKdgxYIRQ3cyRsINwSRUJIJevY= X-Received: by 2002:aca:39c4:: with SMTP id g187mr4300457oia.8.1565299749633; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190808194002.226688-1-almasrymina@google.com> <528b37c6-3e7a-c6fc-a322-beecb89011a5@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <528b37c6-3e7a-c6fc-a322-beecb89011a5@kernel.org> From: Mina Almasry Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:28:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hugetlbfs: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits To: shuah Cc: mike.kravetz@oracle.com, David Rientjes , Shakeel Butt , Greg Thelen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, khalid.aziz@oracle.com, open list , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:23 PM shuah wrote: > > 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. > Only because I was expecting feedback on the approach and alternative approaches before an in-detail review. But, no problem; I'll break it into smaller patches now. > Makes it lot easier to review. > > thanks, > -- Shuah