Re: [RFD] Isolated memory cgroups again

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-10-20T02:01:04Z

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:33:09 -0700
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi all,
> this is a request for discussion (I hope we can touch this during memcg
> meeting during the upcoming KS). I have brought this up earlier this
> year before LSF (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/60464).
> The patch got much smaller since then due to excellent Johannes' memcg
> naturalization work (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68724)
> which this is based on.

Yes, Johannes' work will make isolation smarter.

> I realize that this will be controversial but I would like to hear
> whether this is strictly no-go or whether we can go that direction (the
> implementation might differ of course).
>
> The patch is still half baked but I guess it should be sufficient to
> show what I am trying to achieve.
> The basic idea is that memcgs would get a new attribute (isolated) which
> would control whether that group should be considered during global
> reclaim.
> This means that we could achieve a certain memory isolation for
> processes in the group from the rest of the system activity which has
> been traditionally done by mlocking the important parts of memory.
> This approach, however, has some advantages. First of all, it is a kind
> of all or nothing type of approach. Either the memory is important and
> mlocked or you have no guarantee that it keeps resident.
> Secondly it is much more prone to OOM situation.
> Let's consider a case where a memory is evictable in theory but you
> would pay quite much if you have to get it back resident (pre calculated
> data from database - e.g. reports). The memory wouldn't be used very
> often so it would be a number one candidate to evict after some time.
> We would want to have something like a clever mlock in such a case which
> would evict that memory only if the cgroup itself gets under memory
> pressure (e.g. peak workload). This is not hard to do if we are not
> over committing the memory but things get tricky otherwise.
> With the isolated memcgs we get exactly such a guarantee because we would
> reclaim such a memory only from the hard limit reclaim paths or if the
> soft limit reclaim if it is set up.
>
> Any thoughts comments?
>

I can only say
- it can be implemented in a clean way.
- maybe customers wants it.
- This kinds of "mlock" can be harmful and make system admin difficult.
- I'm not sure there will be a chance for security issue, DOS attack.

Hmm...if the number of isolated pages can be shown in /proc/meminfo,
I'll not have strong NACK.

But I personally think we should make softlimit better rather than
adding new interface. If this feature can be archieved when setting
softlimit=UNLIMITED, it's simple. And Johannes' work will make this
easy to be implemented.
(total rewrite of softlimit should be required...I think.)

Thanks,
-Kame