Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Reclamation interactions with RCU

Kent Overstreet
2024-03-01T04:01:11Z

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:52:06PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:33:59AM +0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 22:09 -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Or maybe you just want the syscall to return an error instead of
> > > blocking for an unbounded amount of time if userspace asks for
> > > something silly.
> >
> > Warn on allocation above a certain size without MAY_FAIL would seem to
> > cover all those cases. If there is a case for requiring instant
> > allocation, you always have GFP_ATOMIC, and, I suppose, we could even
> > do a bounded reclaim allocation where it tries for a certain time then
> > fails.
>
> Then you're baking in this weird constant into all your algorithms that
> doesn't scale as machine memory sizes and working set sizes increase.
>
> > > Honestly, relying on the OOM killer and saying that because that now
> > > we don't have to write and test your error paths is a lazy cop out.
> >
> > OOM Killer is the most extreme outcome. Usually reclaim (hugely
> > simplified) dumps clean cache first and tries the shrinkers then tries
> > to write out dirty cache. Only after that hasn't found anything after
> > a few iterations will the oom killer get activated
>
> All your caches dumped and the machine grinds to a halt and then a
> random process gets killed instead of simply _failing the allocation_.
>
> > > The same kind of thinking got us overcommit, where yes we got an
> > > increase in efficiency, but the cost was that everyone started
> > > assuming and relying on overcommit, so now it's impossible to run
> > > without overcommit enabled except in highly controlled environments.
> >
> > That might be true for your use case, but it certainly isn't true for a
> > cheap hosting cloud using containers: overcommit is where you make your
> > money, so it's absolutely standard operating procedure. I wouldn't
> > call cheap hosting a "highly controlled environment" they're just
> > making a bet they won't get caught out too often.
>
> Reading comprehension fail. Reread what I wrote.
>
> > > And that means allocation failure as an effective signal is just
> > > completely busted in userspace. If you want to write code in
> > > userspace that uses as much memory as is available and no more, you
> > > _can't_, because system behaviour goes to shit if you have overcommit
> > > enabled or a bunch of memory gets wasted if overcommit is disabled
> > > because everyone assumes that's just what you do.
> >
> > OK, this seems to be specific to your use case again, because if you
> > look at what the major user space processes like web browsers do, they
> > allocate way over the physical memory available to them for cache and
> > assume the kernel will take care of it. Making failure a signal for
> > being over the working set would cause all these applications to
> > segfault almost immediately.
>
> Again, reread what I wrote. You're restating what I wrote and completely
> missing the point.
>
> > > Let's _not_ go that route in the kernel. I have pointy sticks to
> > > brandish at people who don't want to deal with properly handling
> > > errors.
> >
> > Error legs are the least exercised and most bug, and therefore exploit,
> > prone pieces of code in C. If we can get rid of them, we should.
>
> Fuck no.
>
> Having working error paths is _basic_, and learning how to test your
> code is also basic. If you can't be bothered to do that you shouldn't be
> writing kernel code.
>
> We are giving far too much by going down the route of "oh, just kill
> stuff if we screwed the pooch and overcommitted".
>
> I don't fucking care if it's what the big cloud providers want because
> it's convenient for them, some of us actually do care about reliability.
>
> By just saying "oh, the OO killer will save us" what you're doing is
> making it nearly impossible to fully utilize a machine without having
> stuff randomly killed.
>
> Fuck. That.

And besides all that, as a practical matter you can't just "not have
erro paths" because, like you said, you'd still have to have a max size
where you WARN() - and _fail the allocation_ - and you've still got to
unwind.

The OOM killer can't kill processes while they're stuck blocking on an
allocation that will rever return in the kernel.

I think we can safely nip this idea in the bud.

Test your damn error paths...