Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:42:00 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@llnl.gov>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@llnl.gov>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification
Message-ID: <20200921134200.GK12990@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20200915213330.GE2949@xz-x1>
 <20200915232238.GO1221970@ziepe.ca>
 <e6c352f8-7ee9-0702-10a4-122d2c4422fc@nvidia.com>
 <20200916174804.GC8409@ziepe.ca>
 <20200916184619.GB40154@xz-x1>
 <20200917112538.GD8409@ziepe.ca>
 <CAHk-=wjtfjB3TqTFRzVmOrB9Mii6Yzc-=wKq0fu4ruDE6AsJgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200917193824.GL8409@ziepe.ca>
 <CAHk-=wiY_g+SSjncZi8sO=LrxXmMox0NO7K34-Fs653XVXheGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200918164032.GA5962@xz-x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200918164032.GA5962@xz-x1>
Precedence: bulk

[Cc Tejun and Christian - this is a part of a larger discussion which is
 not directly related to this particular question so let me trim the
 original email to the bare minimum.]

On Fri 18-09-20 12:40:32, Peter Xu wrote:
[...]
> One issue is when we charge for cgroup we probably can't do that onto the new
> mm/task, since copy_namespaces() is called after copy_mm().  I don't know
> enough about cgroup, I thought the child will inherit the parent's, but I'm not
> sure.  Or, can we change that order of copy_namespaces() && copy_mm()?  I don't
> see a problem so far but I'd like to ask first..

I suspect you are referring to CLONE_INTO_CGROUP, right? I have only now
learned about this feature so I am not deeply familiar with all the
details and I might be easily wrong. Normally all the cgroup aware
resources are accounted to the parent's cgroup. For memcg that includes
all the page tables, early CoW and other allocations with __GFP_ACCOUNT.
IIUC CLONE_INTO_CGROUP properly then this hasn't changed as the child is
associated to its new cgroup (and memcg) only in cgroup_post_fork. If
that is correct then we might have quite a lot of resources bound to
child's lifetime but accounted to the parent's memcg which can lead to
all sorts of interesting problems (e.g. unreclaimable memory - even by
the oom killer).

Christian, Tejun is this the expected semantic or I am just misreading
the code?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs