Re: [PATCH 00/24] Swapin path refactor for optimization and bugfix

[Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>]

Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> 于2023年11月21日周二 03:18写道：
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:48 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> >
> > This series tries to unify and clean up the swapin path, fixing a few
> > issues with optimizations:
> >
> > 1. Memcg leak issue: when a process that previously swapped out some
> >    migrated to another cgroup, and the origianl cgroup is dead. If we
> >    do a swapoff, swapped in pages will be accounted into the process
> >    doing swapoff instead of the new cgroup. This will allow the process
> >    to use more memory than expect easily.
> >
> >    This can be easily reproduced by:
> >    - Setup a swap.
> >    - Create memory cgroup A, B and C.
> >    - Spawn process P1 in cgroup A and make it swap out some pages.
> >    - Move process P1 to memory cgroup B.
> >    - Destroy cgroup A.
> >    - Do a swapoff in cgroup C
> >    - Swapped in pages is accounted into cgroup C.
> >
> >    This patch will fix it make the swapped in pages accounted in cgroup B.
> >
>
> I guess this only works for anonymous memory and not shmem, right?

Hi Yosry,

Yes, this patch only changed the charge target for anon page.

>
> I think tying memcg charges to a process is not something we usually
> do. Charging the pages to the memcg of the faulting process if the
> previous owner is dead makes sense, it's essentially recharging the
> memory to the new owner. Swapoff is indeed a special case, since the
> faulting process is not the new owner, but an admin process or so. I
> am guessing charging to the new memcg of the previous owner might make
> sense in this case, but it is a change of behavior.

After discuss with others I also found this is a controversial issue,
will send separate series for this, I think it needs more discuss.