On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:11 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 27-02-23 09:49:59, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:34 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri 24-02-23 13:07:57, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > > > Btw. it seems that there is is only a limit on a single trigger per fd > > > > > but no limits per user so it doesn't sound too hard to end up with too > > > > > much polling even with a larger timeouts. To me it seems like we need to > > > > > contain the polling thread to be bound by the cpu controller. > > > > > > > > Hmm. We have one "psimon" thread per cgroup (+1 system-level one) and > > > > poll_min_period for each thread is chosen as the min() of polling > > > > periods between triggers created in that group. So, a bad trigger that > > > > causes overly aggressive polling and polling thread being throttled, > > > > might affect other triggers in that cgroup. > > > > > > Yes, and why that would be a problem? > > > > If unprivileged processes are allowed to add new triggers then a > > malicious process can add a bad trigger and affect other legit > > processes. That sounds like a problem to me. > > Hmm, I am not sure we are on the same page. My argument was that the > monitoring kernel thread should be bound by the same cpu controller so > even if it was excessive it would be bound to the cgroup constrains. Right. But if cgroup constraints are violated then the psimon thread's activity will be impacted by throttling. In such cases won't that affect other "good" triggers served by that thread even if they are using higher polling periods? > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
