Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Message-ID: <83352a11-cb54-477d-b19a-5f9e0d00b54d@bytedance.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:04:01 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] sock: Fix improper heuristic on raising
 memory
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@mihalicyn.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230920132545.56834-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
 <20230920132545.56834-2-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
 <20230921190156.s4oygohw4hud42tx@google.com>
 <82c0a442-c7d7-d0f1-54de-7a5e7e6a31d5@bytedance.com>
 <71ac08d3-9f36-e0de-870e-3e252abcb66a@bytedance.com>
 <20230924072816.6ywgoe7ab2max672@google.com>
 <7551924f-a9b6-4bb8-bfe9-e3efcf0da438@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <7551924f-a9b6-4bb8-bfe9-e3efcf0da438@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Gentle ping :)

在 10/3/23 8:49 PM, Abel Wu Wrote:
> On 9/24/23 3:28 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> After a second thought, it is still vague to me about the position
>>> the memcg pressure should be in socket memory allocation. It lacks
>>> convincing design. I think the above hunk helps, but not much.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we should take option (3) first. Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Let's take a step further. Let's decouple the memcg accounting and
>> global skmem accounting. __sk_mem_raise_allocated is already very hard
>> to reason. There are couple of heuristics in it which may or may not
>> apply to both accounting infrastructures.
>>
>> Let's explicitly document what heurisitics allows to forcefully succeed
>> the allocations i.e. irrespective of pressure or over limit for both
>> accounting infras. I think decoupling them would make the flow of the
>> code very clear.
> 
> I can't agree more.
> 
>>
>> There are three heuristics:
> 
> I found all of them were first introduced in linux-2.4.0-test7pre1 for
> TCP only, and then migrated to socket core in linux-2.6.8-rc1 without
> functional change.
> 
>>
>> 1. minimum buffer size even under pressure.
> 
> This is required by RFC 7323 (TCP Extensions for High Performance) to
> make features like Window Scale option work as expected, and should be
> succeeded under global pressure by tcp_{r,w}mem's definition. And IMHO
> for same reason, it should also be succeeded under memcg pressure, or
> else workloads might suffer performance drop due to bottleneck on
> network.
> 
> The allocation must not be succeeded either exceed global or memcg's
> hard limit, or else a DoS attack can be taken place by spawning lots
> of sockets that are under minimum buffer size.
> 
>>
>> 2. allow allocation for a socket whose usage is below average of the
>> system.
> 
> Since 'average' is within the scope of global accounting, this one
> only makes sense under global memory pressure. Actually this exists
> before cgroup was born, hence doesn't take memcg into consideration.
> 
> While OTOH the intention of throttling under memcg pressure is to
> relief the memcg from heavy reclaim pressure, this heuristic does no
> help. And there also seems to be no reason to succeed the allocation
> when global or memcg's hard limit is exceeded.
> 
>>
>> 3. socket is over its sndbuf.
> 
> TBH I don't get its point..
> 
>>
>> Let's discuss which heuristic applies to which accounting infra and
>> under which state (under pressure or over limit).
> 
> I will follow your suggestion to post a patch to explicitly document
> the behaviors once things are cleared.
> 
> Thanks,
>      Abel