Re: Protection against container fork bombs [WAS: Re: memcg with kmem limit doesn't recover after disk i/o causes limit to be hit]

[Richard Davies <richard@arachsys.com>]

Marian Marinov wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 08:15 PM, Dwight Engen wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 May 2014 14:40:55 +0300
> >Marian Marinov <mm@yuhu.biz> wrote:
> >
> >>On 04/23/2014 03:49 PM, Dwight Engen wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:07:28 +0300
> >>>Marian Marinov <mm@yuhu.biz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 04/22/2014 11:05 PM, Richard Davies wrote:
> >>>>>Dwight Engen wrote:
> >>>>>>Richard Davies wrote:
> >>>>>>>Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>In short, kmem limiting for memory cgroups is currently broken.
> >>>>>>>>Do not use it. We are working on making it usable though.
> >>>>>...
> >>>>>>>What is the best mechanism available today, until kmem limits
> >>>>>>>mature?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>RLIMIT_NPROC exists but is per-user, not per-container.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Perhaps there is an up-to-date task counter patchset or similar?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I updated Frederic's task counter patches and included Max
> >>>>>>Kellermann's fork limiter here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/27212
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I can send you a more recent patchset (against 3.13.10) if you
> >>>>>>would find it useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes please, I would be interested in that. Ideally even against
> >>>>>3.14.1 if you have that too.
> >>>>
> >>>>Dwight, do you have these patches in any public repo?
> >>>>
> >>>>I would like to test them also.
> >>>
> >>>Hi Marian, I put the patches against 3.13.11 and 3.14.1 up at:
> >>>
> >>>git://github.com/dwengen/linux.git cpuacct-task-limit-3.13
> >>>git://github.com/dwengen/linux.git cpuacct-task-limit-3.14
> >>>
> >>Guys I tested the patches with 3.12.16. However I see a problem with
> >>them.
> >>
> >>Trying to set the limit to a cgroup which already have processes in
> >>it does not work:
> >
> >This is a similar check/limitation to the one for kmem in memcg, and is
> >done here to keep the res_counters consistent and from going negative.
> >It could probably be relaxed slightly by using res_counter_set_limit()
> >instead, but you would still need to initially set a limit before
> >adding tasks to the group.
> 
> I have removed the check entirely and still receive the EBUSY... I
> just don't understand what is returning it. If you have any
> pointers, I would be happy to take a look.
> 
> I'll look at set_limit(), thanks for pointing that one.
> 
> What I'm proposing is the following checks:
> 
>     if (val > RES_COUNTER_MAX || val < 0)
>         return -EBUSY;
>     if (val != 0 && val <= cgroup_task_count(cgrp))
>         return -EBUSY;
> 
>     res_counter_write_u64(&ca->task_limit, type, val);
> 
> This way we ensure that val is within the limits > 0 and <
> RES_COUNTER_MAX. And also allow only values of 0 or greater then the
> current task count.

I have also noticed that I can't change many different cgroup limits while
there are tasks running in the cgroup - not just cpuacct.task_limit, but
also kmem and even normal memory.limit_in_bytes

I would like to be able to change all of these limits, as long as the new
limit is greater than the actual current use.

Could a method like this be used for all of the others too?

Richard.

> >>[root@sp2 lxc]# echo 50 > cpuacct.task_limit
> >>-bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> >>[root@sp2 lxc]# echo 0 > cpuacct.task_limit
> >>-bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> >>[root@sp2 lxc]#
> >>
> >>I have even tried to remove this check:
> >>+               if (cgroup_task_count(cgrp)
> >>|| !list_empty(&cgrp->children))
> >>+                       return -EBUSY;
> >>But still give me 'Device or resource busy'.
> >>
> >>Any pointers of why is this happening ?
> >>
> >>Marian

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>