From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir()
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:26:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE2DAA3.20606@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120619124036.GB22254@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
(2012/06/19 21:40), Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 19-06-12 09:09:47, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/06/18 22:30), Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 18-06-12 20:57:23, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>>> 2 follow-up patches for "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0",
>>>> developped/tested onto memcg-devel tree. Maybe no HUNK with -next and -mm....
>>>> -Kame
>>>> ==
>>>> memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir()
>>>>
>>>> By commit "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0",
>>>> no memory reclaiming will occur at removing memory cgroup.
>>>
>>> OK, so the there are only 2 reasons why move_parent could fail in this
>>> path. 1) it races with somebody else who is uncharging or moving the
>>> charge and 2) THP split.
>>> 1) works for us and 2) doens't seem to be serious enough to expect that
>>> it would stall rmdir on the group for unbound amount of time so the
>>> change is safe (can we make this into the changelog please?).
>>>
>>
>> Yes. But the failure of move_parent() (-EBUSY) will be retried.
>>
>> Remaining problems are
>> - attaching task while pre_destroy() is called.
>> - creating child cgroup while pre_destroy() is called.
>
> I don't know why but I thought that tasks and subgroups are not alowed
> when pre_destroy is called. If this is possible then we probably want to
> check for pending signals or at least add cond_resched.
Now, pre_destroy() call is done as
lock_cgroup_mutex();
do some pre-check, no child, no tasks.
unlock_cgroup_mutex();
->pre_destroy()
lock_cgroup_mutex()
check css's refcnt....
What I take care of now is following case.
CPU A CPU-B
unlock_cgroup_mutex()
->pre_destroy()
<delay by something> attach new task
add new charge
detach the task
lock_cgroup_mutex()
check rss' refcnt
This will cause account leak even if I think this will not happen in the real world.
I'd like to disable attach task.
Now, our ->pre_destroy() is quite fast because we don't have no memory reclaim.
I believe we can call ->pre_destroy() without dropping cgroup_mutex.
lock_cgroup_mutex()
do pre-check
->pre_destroy()
check css's refcnt
I think this is straightforward. I'd like to post a patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir()
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:26:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE2DAA3.20606@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120619124036.GB22254@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
(2012/06/19 21:40), Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 19-06-12 09:09:47, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/06/18 22:30), Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 18-06-12 20:57:23, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>>> 2 follow-up patches for "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0",
>>>> developped/tested onto memcg-devel tree. Maybe no HUNK with -next and -mm....
>>>> -Kame
>>>> ==
>>>> memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir()
>>>>
>>>> By commit "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0",
>>>> no memory reclaiming will occur at removing memory cgroup.
>>>
>>> OK, so the there are only 2 reasons why move_parent could fail in this
>>> path. 1) it races with somebody else who is uncharging or moving the
>>> charge and 2) THP split.
>>> 1) works for us and 2) doens't seem to be serious enough to expect that
>>> it would stall rmdir on the group for unbound amount of time so the
>>> change is safe (can we make this into the changelog please?).
>>>
>>
>> Yes. But the failure of move_parent() (-EBUSY) will be retried.
>>
>> Remaining problems are
>> - attaching task while pre_destroy() is called.
>> - creating child cgroup while pre_destroy() is called.
>
> I don't know why but I thought that tasks and subgroups are not alowed
> when pre_destroy is called. If this is possible then we probably want to
> check for pending signals or at least add cond_resched.
Now, pre_destroy() call is done as
lock_cgroup_mutex();
do some pre-check, no child, no tasks.
unlock_cgroup_mutex();
->pre_destroy()
lock_cgroup_mutex()
check css's refcnt....
What I take care of now is following case.
CPU A CPU-B
unlock_cgroup_mutex()
->pre_destroy()
<delay by something> attach new task
add new charge
detach the task
lock_cgroup_mutex()
check rss' refcnt
This will cause account leak even if I think this will not happen in the real world.
I'd like to disable attach task.
Now, our ->pre_destroy() is quite fast because we don't have no memory reclaim.
I believe we can call ->pre_destroy() without dropping cgroup_mutex.
lock_cgroup_mutex()
do pre-check
->pre_destroy()
check css's refcnt
I think this is straightforward. I'd like to post a patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-21 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-18 11:57 [PATCH 1/2] memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir() Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-18 11:57 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-18 11:57 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FDF17A3.9060202-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-06-18 11:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: clean up force_empty_list() return value check Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-18 11:59 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-18 11:59 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FDF1830.1000504-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-06-18 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-18 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-18 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-19 23:58 ` Andrew Morton
2012-06-19 23:58 ` Andrew Morton
2012-06-21 8:11 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-21 8:11 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FE2D747.20506-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-06-21 8:17 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-21 8:17 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-21 8:17 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FE2D87D.2090500-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-06-21 20:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-06-21 20:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-06-21 20:13 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <20120621131328.1e906266.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
2012-06-22 0:04 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-22 0:04 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-22 0:04 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-18 13:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir() Michal Hocko
2012-06-18 13:30 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-19 0:09 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-19 0:09 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-19 12:40 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-19 12:40 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-21 8:26 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki [this message]
2012-06-21 8:26 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
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=4FE2DAA3.20606@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.