On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:48:58AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 03:41:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 06-07-22 11:05:25, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 06:55:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > [...] > > > > For example, I assume that a BPF program > > > > has a fairly tight limit on how much memory it can cause to be allocated. > > > > Right? > > > > > > No. It's constrained by memcg limits only. It can allocate gigabytes. > > > > I have very briefly had a look at the core allocator parts (please note > > that my understanding of BPF is really close to zero so I might be > > missing a lot of implicit stuff). So by constrained by memcg you mean > > __GFP_ACCOUNT done from the allocation context (irq_work). The complete > > gfp mask is GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_ACCOUNT > > which means this allocation is not allowed to sleep and GFP_ATOMIC > > implies __GFP_HIGH to say that access to memory reserves is allowed. > > Memcg charging code interprets this that the hard limit can be breached > > under assumption that these are rare and will be compensated in some > > way. The bulk allocator implemented here, however, doesn't reflect that > > and continues allocating as it sees a success so the breach of the limit > > is only bound by the number of objects to be allocated. If those can be > > really large then this is a clear problem and __GFP_HIGH usage is not > > really appropriate. > > That was a copy paste from the networking stack. See kmalloc_reserve(). > Not sure whether it's a bug there or not. kmalloc_reserve() is good. Most of calls to kmalloc_reserve() are for skbs and we don't use __GFP_ACCOUNT for skbs. Actually skbs are charged to memcg through a separate interface (i.e. mem_cgroup_charge_skmem()) > In a separate thread we've agreed to convert all of bpf allocations > to GFP_NOWAIT. For this patch set I've already fixed it in my branch. > > > Also, I do not see any tracking of the overall memory sitting in these > > pools and I think this would be really appropriate. As there doesn't > > seem to be any reclaim mechanism implemented this can hide quite some > > unreachable memory. > > > > Finally it is not really clear to what kind of entity is the life time > > of these caches bound to. Let's say the system goes OOM, is any process > > responsible for it and a clean up would be done if it gets killed? > > We've been asking these questions for years and have been trying to > come up with a solution. > bpf progs are not analogous to user space processes. > There are bpf progs that function completely without user space component. > bpf progs are pretty close to be full featured kernel modules with > the difference that bpf progs are safe, portable and users have > full visibility into them (source code, line info, type info, etc) > They are not binary blobs unlike kernel modules. > But from OOM perspective they're pretty much like .ko-s. > Which kernel module would you force unload when system is OOMing ? > Force unloading ko-s will likely crash the system. > Force unloading bpf progs maybe equally bad. The system won't crash, > but it may be a sorrow state. The bpf could have been doing security > enforcement or network firewall or providing key insights to critical > user space components like systemd or health check daemon. > We've been discussing ideas on how to rank and auto cleanup > the system state when progs have to be unloaded. Some sort of > destructor mechanism. Fingers crossed we will have it eventually. > bpf infra keeps track of everything, of course. > Technically we can detach, unpin and unload everything and all memory > will be returned back to the system. > Anyhow not a new problem. Orthogonal to this patch set. > bpf progs have been doing memory allocation from day one. 8 years ago. > This patch set is trying to make it 100% safe. > Currently it's 99% safe. Most probably Michal's comment was on free objects sitting in the caches (also pointed out by Yosry). Should we drain them on memory pressure / OOM or should we ignore them as the amount of memory is not significant?
