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 16:57:38 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        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: <20200921145738.GN12990@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <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>
 <20200921134200.GK12990@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200921144134.fuvkkv6wgrzpbwnv@wittgenstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200921144134.fuvkkv6wgrzpbwnv@wittgenstein>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 21-09-20 16:41:34, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:42:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [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?
> 
> Hey Michal,
> 
> Thanks for the Cc!
> 
> If I understand your question correctly, then you are correct. The logic
> is split in three simple parts:
> 1. Child gets created and doesn't live in any cset
>    - This should mean that resources are still charged against the
>      parent's memcg which is what you're asking afiu.
> 1. cgroup_can_fork()
>    - create new or find existing matching cset for the child
> 3. cgroup_post_fork()
>    - move/attach child to the new or found cset
> 
> _Purely from a CLONE_INTO_CGROUP perspective_ you should be ok to
> reverse the order of copy_mm() and copy_namespaces().

Switching the order wouldn't make much of a difference right. At least
not for memcg where all the accounted allocations will still go to
current's memcg.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs