Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/oom: handle remote ooms

[Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue 16-11-21 02:17:09, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:28 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 15-11-21 16:58:19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:58 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri 12-11-21 09:59:22, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:36 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri 12-11-21 00:12:52, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:52 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu 11-11-21 15:42:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On remote ooms (OOMs due to remote charging), the oom-killer will attempt
> > > > > > > > > to find a task to kill in the memcg under oom, if the oom-killer
> > > > > > > > > is unable to find one, the oom-killer should simply return ENOMEM to the
> > > > > > > > > allocating process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This really begs for some justification.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm thinking (and I can add to the commit message in v4) that we have
> > > > > > > 2 reasonable options when the oom-killer gets invoked and finds
> > > > > > > nothing to kill: (1) return ENOMEM, (2) kill the allocating task. I'm
> > > > > > > thinking returning ENOMEM allows the application to gracefully handle
> > > > > > > the failure to remote charge and continue operation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, in the network service use case that I mentioned in the
> > > > > > > RFC proposal, it's beneficial for the network service to get an ENOMEM
> > > > > > > and continue to service network requests for other clients running on
> > > > > > > the machine, rather than get oom-killed when hitting the remote memcg
> > > > > > > limit. But, this is not a hard requirement, the network service could
> > > > > > > fork a process that does the remote charging to guard against the
> > > > > > > remote charge bringing down the entire process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This all belongs to the changelog so that we can discuss all potential
> > > > > > implication and do not rely on any implicit assumptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Understood. Maybe I'll wait to collect more feedback and upload v4
> > > > > with a thorough explanation of the thought process.
> > > > >
> > > > > > E.g. why does
> > > > > > it even make sense to kill a task in the origin cgroup?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The behavior I saw returning ENOMEM for this edge case was that the
> > > > > code was forever looping the pagefault, and I was (seemingly
> > > > > incorrectly) under the impression that a suggestion to forever loop
> > > > > the pagefault would be completely fundamentally unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have to say I am not entirely sure what is the best way to
> > > > handle this situation. Another option would be to treat this similar to
> > > > ENOSPACE situation. This would result into SIGBUS IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > The main problem with OOM killer is that it will not resolve the
> > > > underlying problem in most situations. Shmem files would likely stay
> > > > laying around and their charge along with them. Killing the allocating
> > > > task has problems on its own because this could be just a DoS vector by
> > > > other unrelated tasks sharing the shmem mount point without a gracefull
> > > > fallback. Retrying the page fault is hard to detect. SIGBUS might be
> > > > something that helps with the latest. The question is how to communicate
> > > > this requerement down to the memcg code to know that the memory reclaim
> > > > should happen (Should it? How hard we should try?) but do not invoke the
> > > > oom killer. The more I think about this the nastier this is.
> > >
> > > So actually I thought the ENOSPC suggestion was interesting so I took
> > > the liberty to prototype it. The changes required:
> > >
> > > 1. In out_of_memory() we return false if !oc->chosen &&
> > > is_remote_oom(). This gets bubbled up to try_charge_memcg() as
> > > mem_cgroup_oom() returning OOM_FAILED.
> > > 2. In try_charge_memcg(), if we get an OOM_FAILED we again check
> > > is_remote_oom(), if it is a remote oom, return ENOSPC.
> > > 3. The calling code would return ENOSPC to the user in the no-fault
> > > path, and SIGBUS the user in the fault path with no changes.
> >
> > I think this should be implemented at the caller side rather than
> > somehow hacked into the memcg core. It is the caller to know what to do.
> > The caller can use gfp flags to control the reclaim behavior.
> >
> 
> Hmm I'm a bit struggling to envision this.  So would it be acceptable
> at the call sites where we doing a remote charge, such as
> shmem_add_to_page_cache(), if we get ENOMEM from the
> mem_cgroup_charge(), and we know we're doing a remote charge (because
> current's memcg != the super block memcg), then we return ENOSPC from
> shmem_add_to_page_cache()? I believe that will return ENOSPC to the
> userspace in the non-pagefault path and SIGBUS in the pagefault path.
> Or you had something else in mind?

Yes, exactly. I meant that all this special casing would be done at the
shmem layer as it knows how to communicate this usecase.

[...]

> > And just a small clarification. Tmpfs is fundamentally problematic from
> > the OOM handling POV. The nuance here is that the OOM happens in a
> > different memcg and thus a different resource domain. If you kill a task
> > in the target memcg then you effectively DoS that workload. If you kill
> > the allocating task then it is DoSed by anybody allowed to write to that
> > shmem. All that without a graceful fallback.
> 
> I don't know if this addresses your concern, but I'm limiting the
> memcg= use to processes that can enter that memcg. Therefore they
> would be able to allocate memory in that memcg anyway by entering it.
> So if they wanted to intentionally DoS that memcg they can already do
> it without this feature.

Can you elaborate some more? How do you enforce that the mount point
cannot be accessed by anybody outside of that constraint?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs