Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c390dc64-280e-6d9f-661a-9a5d77f16cf8@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:41:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Introduce bpf_select_task
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com,
        robin.lu@bytedance.com
References: <20230804093804.47039-1-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
 <20230804093804.47039-2-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
 <ZMzhDFhvol2VQBE4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <dfbf05d1-daff-e855-f4fd-e802614b79c4@bytedance.com>
 <ZMz+aBHFvfcr0oIe@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <866462cf-6045-6239-6e27-45a733aa7daa@bytedance.com>
 <ZNCXgsZL7bKsCEBM@dhcp22.suse.cz> <ZNEpsUFgKFIAAgrp@P9FQF9L96D.lan>
 <ZNH6X/2ZZ0quKSI6@dhcp22.suse.cz> <ZNK2fUmIfawlhuEY@P9FQF9L96D>
 <ZNNGFzwlv1dC866j@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <ZNNGFzwlv1dC866j@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

>>>> First, I'm a bit concerned about implicit restrictions we apply to bpf programs
>>>> which will be executed potentially thousands times under a very heavy memory
>>>> pressure. We will need to make sure that they don't allocate (much) memory, don't
>>>> take any locks which might deadlock with other memory allocations etc.
>>>> It will potentially require hard restrictions on what these programs can and can't
>>>> do and this is something that the bpf community will have to maintain long-term.
>>>
>>> Right, BPF callbacks operating under OOM situations will be really
>>> constrained but this is more or less by definition. Isn't it?
>>
>> What do you mean?
> 
> Callbacks cannot depend on any direct or indirect memory allocations.
> Dependencies on any sleeping locks (again directly or indirectly) is not
> allowed just to name the most important ones.
> 
>> In general, the bpf community is trying to make it as generic as possible and
>> adding new and new features. Bpf programs are not as constrained as they were
>> when it's all started.

bpf supports different running context. For example, only non-sleepable bpf prog 
is allowed to run at the NIC driver. A sleepable bpf prog is only allowed to run 
at some bpf_lsm hooks that is known to be safe to call blocking 
bpf-helper/kfunc. From the bpf side, it ensures a non-sleepable bpf prog cannot 
do things that may block.

fwiw, Dave has recently proposed something for iterating the task vma 
(https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230810183513.684836-4-davemarchevsky@fb.com/). 
Potentially, a similar iterator can be created for a bpf program to iterate 
cgroups and tasks.