On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 9:11 PM Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7/15/21 8:11 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:51 PM Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> OpenVZ uses memory accounting 20+ years since v2.2.x linux kernels. > >> Initially we used our own accounting subsystem, then partially committed > >> it to upstream, and a few years ago switched to cgroups v1. > >> Now we're rebasing again, revising our old patches and trying to push > >> them upstream. > >> > >> We try to protect the host system from any misuse of kernel memory > >> allocation triggered by untrusted users inside the containers. > >> > >> Patch-set is addressed mostly to cgroups maintainers and cgroups@ mailing > >> list, though I would be very grateful for any comments from maintainersi > >> of affected subsystems or other people added in cc: > >> > >> Compared to the upstream, we additionally account the following kernel objects: > >> - network devices and its Tx/Rx queues > >> - ipv4/v6 addresses and routing-related objects > >> - inet_bind_bucket cache objects > >> - VLAN group arrays > >> - ipv6/sit: ip_tunnel_prl > >> - scm_fp_list objects used by SCM_RIGHTS messages of Unix sockets > >> - nsproxy and namespace objects itself > >> - IPC objects: semaphores, message queues and share memory segments > >> - mounts > >> - pollfd and select bits arrays > >> - signals and posix timers > >> - file lock > >> - fasync_struct used by the file lease code and driver's fasync queues > >> - tty objects > >> - per-mm LDT > >> > >> We have an incorrect/incomplete/obsoleted accounting for few other kernel > >> objects: sk_filter, af_packets, netlink and xt_counters for iptables. > >> They require rework and probably will be dropped at all. > >> > >> Also we're going to add an accounting for nft, however it is not ready yet. > >> > >> We have not tested performance on upstream, however, our performance team > >> compares our current RHEL7-based production kernel and reports that > >> they are at least not worse as the according original RHEL7 kernel. > > > > Hi Vasily, > > > > What's the status of this series? I see a couple patches did get > > acked/reviewed. Can you please re-send the series with updated ack > > tags? > > Technically my patches does not have any NAKs. Practically they are still them merged. > I've expected Michal will push it, but he advised me to push subsystem maintainers. > I've asked Tejun to pick up the whole patch set and I'm waiting for his feedback right now. > > I can resend patch set once again, with collected approval and with rebase to v5.14-rc1. > However I do not understand how it helps to push them if patches should be processed through > subsystem maintainers. As far as I understand I'll need to split this patch set into > per-subsystem pieces and sent them to corresponded maintainers. > Usually these kinds of patches (adding memcg accounting) go through mm tree but if there are no dependencies between the patches and a consensus that each subsystem maintainer picks the corresponding patch then that is fine too.
