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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210502180755.445-1-longman@redhat.com> <20210502180755.445-2-longman@redhat.com>
 <699e5ac8-9044-d664-f73f-778fe72fd09b@suse.cz> <4c90cf79-9c61-8964-a6fd-2da087893339@redhat.com>
 <d767ff72-711d-976c-d897-9cea0375c827@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <d767ff72-711d-976c-d897-9cea0375c827@suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 09:24:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4aW0P2a5ZG4JO4YH2oQ8a1kM9_Tsjz-tAGP_-9hLyOpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: memcg/slab: Don't create unfreeable slab
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 8:32 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 5/3/21 4:20 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 5/3/21 8:22 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 5/2/21 8:07 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>> The obj_cgroup array (memcg_data) embedded in the page structure is
> >>> allocated at the first instance an accounted memory allocation happens.
> >>> With the right size object, it is possible that the allocated obj_cgroup
> >>> array comes from the same slab that requires memory accounting. If this
> >>> happens, the slab will never become empty again as there is at least one
> >>> object left (the obj_cgroup array) in the slab.
> >>>
> >>> With instructmentation code added to detect this situation, I got 76
> >>> hits on the kmalloc-192 slab when booting up a test kernel on a VM.
> >>> So this can really happen.
> >>>
> >>> To avoid the creation of these unfreeable slabs, a check is added to
> >>> memcg_alloc_page_obj_cgroups() to detect that and double the size
> >>> of the array in case it happens to make sure that it comes from a
> >>> different kmemcache.
> >>>
> >>> This change, however, does not completely eliminate the presence
> >>> of unfreeable slabs which can still happen if a circular obj_cgroup
> >>> array dependency is formed.
> >> Hm this looks like only a half fix then.
> >> I'm afraid the proper fix is for kmemcg to create own set of caches for the
> >> arrays. It would also solve the recursive kfree() issue.
> >
> > Right, this is a possible solution. However, the objcg pointers array should
> > need that much memory. Creating its own set of kmemcaches may seem like an
> > overkill.
>
> Well if we go that way, there might be additional benefits:
>
> depending of gfp flags, kmalloc() would allocate from:
>
> kmalloc-* caches that never have kmemcg objects, thus can be used for the objcg
> pointer arrays
> kmalloc-cg-* caches that have only kmemcg unreclaimable objects
> kmalloc-rcl-* and dma-kmalloc-* can stay with on-demand
> memcg_alloc_page_obj_cgroups()
>
> This way we fully solve the issues that this patchset solves. In addition we get
> better separation between kmemcg and !kmemcg thus save memory - no allocation of
> the array as soon as a single object appears in slab. For "kmalloc-8" we now
> have 8 bytes for the useful data and 8 bytes for the obj_cgroup  pointer.
>

Yes this seems like a better approach.