Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:55:17 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting
Message-ID: <20180815165513.GA26330@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180815003620.15678-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180815163923.GA28953@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180815163923.GA28953@cmpxchg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2018 16:55:23.1660 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 22c8e998-1e58-4978-c16d-08d602cfe4f3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR15MB0161
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-15_06:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39:23PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 05:36:19PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > @@ -224,9 +224,14 @@ static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
> >  		return s->addr;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Allocated stacks are cached and later reused by new threads,
> > +	 * so memcg accounting is performed manually on assigning/releasing
> > +	 * stacks to tasks. Drop __GFP_ACCOUNT.
> > +	 */
> >  	stack = __vmalloc_node_range(THREAD_SIZE, THREAD_ALIGN,
> >  				     VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END,
> > -				     THREADINFO_GFP,
> > +				     THREADINFO_GFP & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT,
> >  				     PAGE_KERNEL,
> >  				     0, node, __builtin_return_address(0));
> >  
> > @@ -246,12 +251,41 @@ static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
> >  #endif
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void memcg_charge_kernel_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> > +	struct vm_struct *vm = task_stack_vm_area(tsk);
> > +
> > +	if (vm) {
> > +		int i;
> > +
> > +		for (i = 0; i < THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE; i++)
> > +			memcg_kmem_charge(vm->pages[i], __GFP_NOFAIL,
> > +					  compound_order(vm->pages[i]));
> > +
> > +		/* All stack pages belong to the same memcg. */
> > +		mod_memcg_page_state(vm->pages[0], MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB,
> > +				     THREAD_SIZE / 1024);
> > +	}
> > +#endif
> > +}
> 
> Before this change, the memory limit can fail the fork, but afterwards
> fork() can grow memory consumption unimpeded by the cgroup settings.
> 
> Can we continue to use try_charge() here and fail the fork?

We can, but I'm not convinced we should.

Kernel stack is relatively small, and it's already allocated at this point.
So IMO exceeding the memcg limit for 1-2 pages isn't worse than
adding complexity and handle this case (e.g. uncharge partially
charged stack). Do you have an example, when it does matter?