[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits
On 9/27/19 3:51 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:59 PM Mike Kravetz <> wrote:
>> On 9/26/19 5:55 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>> Provided we keep the existing controller untouched, should the new
>>> controller track:
>>> 1. only reservations, or
>>> 2. both reservations and allocations for which no reservations exist
>>> (such as the MAP_NORESERVE case)?
>>> I like the 'both' approach. Seems to me a counter like that would work
>>> automatically regardless of whether the application is allocating
>>> hugetlb memory with NORESERVE or not. NORESERVE allocations cannot cut
>>> into reserved hugetlb pages, correct?
>> Correct. One other easy way to allocate huge pages without reserves
>> (that I know is used today) is via the fallocate system call.
>>> If so, then applications that
>>> allocate with NORESERVE will get sigbused when they hit their limit,
>>> and applications that allocate without NORESERVE may get an error at
>>> mmap time but will always be within their limits while they access the
>>> mmap'd memory, correct?
>> Correct. At page allocation time we can easily check to see if a reservation
>> exists and not charge. For any specific page within a hugetlbfs file,
>> a charge would happen at mmap time or allocation time.
>> One exception (that I can think of) to this mmap(RESERVE) will not cause
>> a SIGBUS rule is in the case of hole punch. If someone punches a hole in
>> a file, not only do they remove pages associated with the file but the
>> reservation information as well. Therefore, a subsequent fault will be
>> the same as an allocation without reservation.
> I don't think it causes a sigbus. This is the scenario, right:
> 1. Make cgroup with limit X bytes.
> 2. Task in cgroup mmaps a file with X bytes, causing the cgroup to get charged
> 3. A hole of size Y is punched in the file, causing the cgroup to get
> uncharged Y bytes.
> 4. The task faults in memory from the hole, getting charged up to Y
> bytes again. But they will be still within their limits.
> IIUC userspace only gets sigbus'd if the limit is lowered between
> steps 3 and 4, and it's ok if it gets sigbus'd there in my opinion.

You are correct. That was my mistake. I was still thinking of behavior
for a reservation only cgroup model. It would behave as you describe
above (no SIGBUS) for a combined reservation/allocate model.
Mike Kravetz

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-28 00:59    [W:0.041 / U:5.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site