Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 13:31 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> they all are troublesome :/
> user can create lots of vmas, w/o page tables.
> lots of fdsets, ipcids.
> These are not reclaimable.

In the real world, with the customers to which you've given these
patches, which of these objects is most likely to be consuming the most
space?  Is there one set of objects that we could work on that would fix
_most_ of the cases which you have encountered?

> Also consider the following scenario with reclaimable page tables.
> e.g. user hit kmemsize limit due to fat page tables.
> kernel reclaims some of the page tables and frees user kenerl memory.
> after that user creates some uncreclaimable objects like fdsets or ipcs
> and then accesses memory with reclaimed page tables.
> Sooner or later we kill user with SIGSEGV from page fault due to
> no memory. This is worse then returning ENOMEM from poll() or
> mmap() where user allocates kernel objects. 

I think you're claiming that doing reclaim of kernel objects causes much
more severe and less recoverable errors than does reclaiming of user
pages.  That might generally be true, but I have one example that's
killing me.  (You shouldn't have mentioned mmap ;)

Let's say you have a memory area mapped by one pagetable page, and with
1 user page mapped in it.  The system is out of memory, and if you
reclaim either the pagetable page or the user page, you're never going
to get it back.

So, you pick the user page to reclaim.  The user touches it, the memory
allocation fails, and the process gets killed.

Instead, you reclaim the pagetable page.  The user touches their page,
the memory allocation for the pagetable fails, and the process gets
killed.  

Seems like the same end result to me.  

-- Dave