Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 06/34] bpf: prepare for memcg-based memory accounting for bpf maps

Roman Gushchin
2020-11-26T16:06:36Z

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:56:12AM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 01:21:41AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 11/25/20 4:00 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >> > In the absolute majority of cases if a process is making a kernel
> >> > allocation, it's memory cgroup is getting charged.
> >> >
> >> > Bpf maps can be updated from an interrupt context and in such
> >> > case there is no process which can be charged. It makes the memory
> >> > accounting of bpf maps non-trivial.
> >> >
> >> > Fortunately, after commit 4127c6504f25 ("mm: kmem: enable kernel
> >> > memcg accounting from interrupt contexts") and b87d8cefe43c
> >> > ("mm, memcg: rework remote charging API to support nesting")
> >> > it's finally possible.
> >> >
> >> > To do it, a pointer to the memory cgroup of the process, which created
> >> > the map, is saved, and this cgroup can be charged for all allocations
> >> > made from an interrupt context. This commit introduces 2 helpers:
> >> > bpf_map_kmalloc_node() and bpf_map_alloc_percpu(). They can be used in
> >> > the bpf code for accounted memory allocations, both in the process and
> >> > interrupt contexts. In the interrupt context they're using the saved
> >> > memory cgroup, otherwise the current cgroup is getting charged.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks for updating the cover letter; replying in this series instead
> >> on one more item that came to mind:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> >> > index f3fe9f53f93c..4154c616788c 100644
> >> > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> >> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> >> > @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
> >> > #include <linux/poll.h>
> >> > #include <linux/bpf-netns.h>
> >> > #include <linux/rcupdate_trace.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
> >> > #define IS_FD_ARRAY(map) ((map)->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY || \
> >> > (map)->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_ARRAY || \
> >> > @@ -456,6 +458,77 @@ void bpf_map_free_id(struct bpf_map *map, bool do_idr_lock)
> >> > __release(&map_idr_lock);
> >> > }
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >> > +static void bpf_map_save_memcg(struct bpf_map *map)
> >> > +{
> >> > + map->memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(current->mm);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void bpf_map_release_memcg(struct bpf_map *map)
> >> > +{
> >> > + mem_cgroup_put(map->memcg);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +void *bpf_map_kmalloc_node(const struct bpf_map *map, size_t size, gfp_t flags,
> >> > + int node)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct mem_cgroup *old_memcg;
> >> > + bool in_interrupt;
> >> > + void *ptr;
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * If the memory allocation is performed from an interrupt context,
> >> > + * the memory cgroup to charge can't be determined from the context
> >> > + * of the current task. Instead, we charge the memory cgroup, which
> >> > + * contained the process created the map.
> >> > + */
> >> > + in_interrupt = in_interrupt();
> >> > + if (in_interrupt)
> >> > + old_memcg = set_active_memcg(map->memcg);
> >> > +
> >> > + ptr = kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (in_interrupt)
> >> > + set_active_memcg(old_memcg);
> >> > +
> >> > + return ptr;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +void __percpu *bpf_map_alloc_percpu(const struct bpf_map *map, size_t size,
> >> > + size_t align, gfp_t gfp)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct mem_cgroup *old_memcg;
> >> > + bool in_interrupt;
> >> > + void *ptr;
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * If the memory allocation is performed from an interrupt context,
> >> > + * the memory cgroup to charge can't be determined from the context
> >> > + * of the current task. Instead, we charge the memory cgroup, which
> >> > + * contained the process created the map.
> >> > + */
> >> > + in_interrupt = in_interrupt();
> >> > + if (in_interrupt)
> >> > + old_memcg = set_active_memcg(map->memcg);
> >> > +
> >> > + ptr = __alloc_percpu_gfp(size, align, gfp);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (in_interrupt)
> >> > + set_active_memcg(old_memcg);
> >>
> >> For this and above bpf_map_kmalloc_node() one, wouldn't it make more sense to
> >> perform the temporary memcg unconditionally?
> >>
> >> old_memcg = set_active_memcg(map->memcg);
> >> ptr = kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
> >> set_active_memcg(old_memcg);
> >>
> >> I think the semantics are otherwise a bit weird and the charging unpredictable;
> >> this way it would /always/ be accounted against the prog in the memcg that
> >> originally created the map.
> >>
> >> E.g. maps could be shared between progs attached to, say, XDP/tc where in_interrupt()
> >> holds true with progs attached to skb-cgroup/egress where we're still in process
> >> context. So some part of the memory is charged against the original map's memcg and
> >> some other part against the current process' memcg which seems odd, no? Or, for example,
> >> if we start to run a tracing BPF prog which updates state in a BPF map ... that tracing
> >> prog now interferes with processes in other memcgs which may not be intentional & could
> >> lead to potential failures there as opposed when the tracing prog is not run. My concern
> >> is that the semantics are not quite clear and behavior unpredictable compared to always
> >> charging against map->memcg.
> >>
> >> Similarly, what if an orchestration prog creates dedicated memcg(s) for maps with
> >> individual limits ... the assumed behavior (imho) would be that whatever memory is
> >> accounted on the map it can be accurately retrieved from there & similarly limits
> >> enforced, no? It seems that would not be the case currently.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I did consider this option. There are pros and cons. In general we
> > tend to charge the cgroup which actually allocates the memory, and I
> > decided to stick with this rule. I agree, it's fairly easy to come
> > with arguments why always charging the map creator is better. The
> > opposite is also true: it's not clear why bpf is different here. So
> > I'm fine with both options, if there is a wide consensus, I'm happy to
> > switch to the other option. In general, I believe that the current
> > scheme is more flexible: if someone want to pay in advance, they are
> > free to preallocate the map. Otherwise it's up to whoever wants to
> > populate it.
>
> I think I agree with Daniel here: conceptually the memory used by a map
> ought to belong to that map's memcg. I can see how the other scheme can
> be more flexible, but as Daniel points out it seems like it can lead to
> hard-to-debug errors...

Ok, I'll switch to always charging the map's memcg in the next version.

>
> (Side note: I'm really excited about this work in general! The ulimit
> thing has been a major pain...)

Great! Thanks!