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;
Subject: Re: [bug report] resctrl high memory comsumption
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org
References: <CALvZod7E9zzHwenzf7objzGKsdBmVwTgEJ0nPgs0LUFU3SN5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200108202311.GA40461@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
 <bbc27400-68d9-13fd-7402-d158a6754122@intel.com>
 <20200108214250.GB40461@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Message-ID: <c1c19ba6-4113-fa4d-4313-4d1d551a95f2@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:54:39 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200108214250.GB40461@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Fenghua,

On 1/8/2020 1:42 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:42:17PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Fenghua,
>> On 1/8/2020 12:23 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:07:41AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>>> Recently we had a bug in the system software writing the same pids to
>>>> the tasks file of resctrl group multiple times. The resctrl code
>>> Subject: [RFC PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix redundant task movements
>> I think your fix would address this specific use case but a slightly
>> different use case will still encounter the problem of high memory
>> consumption. If for example, sleeping tasks are moved (many times)
>> between resource or monitoring groups then their task_works queue would
>> just keep growing. It seems that a call to task_work_cancel() before
>> adding a new work item should address all these cases?
> 
> The checking code in this patch is also helpful to avoid redundant
> task move preparation (kzalloc(), task_work_add(), etc) in the same
> rdtgroup.

Indeed.

> 
> How about adding both the checking code and task_work_cancel()?

That does sound good to me.

There is something in the current implementation that I would appreciate
your feedback on: Currently the task's closid and rmid are initialized
_after_ the call to task_work_add() succeeds. Should these not be
initialized before the call to task_work_add()?

Thank you

Reinette