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:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:48:50 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
CC:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: memcg: late association of sock to memcg
Message-ID: <20200222014850.GC459391@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20200222010456.40635-1-shakeelb@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200222010456.40635-1-shakeelb@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 60c548c2-145a-4437-f917-08d7b7395ffa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2020 01:48:54.9865
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: DDtadEIMefPC0kxFBAslBUM9E/kVgT08PhRkq6/DhT9Fobk+kuS8iqX8e2lg5OsU
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB2199
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572
 definitions=2020-02-21_09:2020-02-21,2020-02-21 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 malwarescore=0
 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=1 clxscore=1011
 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0
 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002220011
X-FB-Internal: deliver
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 Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:04:56PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> If a TCP socket is allocated in IRQ context or cloned from unassociated
> (i.e. not associated to a memcg) in IRQ context then it will remain
> unassociated for its whole life. Almost half of the TCPs created on the
> system are created in IRQ context, so, memory used by suck sockets will
> not be accounted by the memcg.
> 
> This issue is more widespread in cgroup v1 where network memory
> accounting is opt-in but it can happen in cgroup v2 if the source socket
> for the cloning was created in root memcg.
> 
> To fix the issue, just do the late association of the unassociated
> sockets at accept() time in the process context and then force charge
> the memory buffer already reserved by the socket.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>

Hello, Shakeel!

> ---
>  net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index a4db79b1b643..df9c8ef024a2 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -482,6 +482,13 @@ struct sock *inet_csk_accept(struct sock *sk, int flags, int *err, bool kern)
>  		}
>  		spin_unlock_bh(&queue->fastopenq.lock);
>  	}
> +
> +	if (mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && !newsk->sk_memcg) {
> +		mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(newsk);
> +		if (newsk->sk_memcg)
> +			mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(newsk->sk_memcg,
> +					sk_mem_pages(newsk->sk_forward_alloc));
> +	}

Looks good for me from the memcg side. Let's see what networking people will say...

Btw, do you plan to make a separate patch for associating the socket with the default
cgroup on the unified hierarchy? I mean cgroup_sk_alloc().

Thank you for working on it!

Roman