linux-kernel - Re: [mm][PATCH 0/4] Memory cgroup hierarchy introduction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:22:04 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [mm][PATCH 0/4] Memory cgroup hierarchy introduction

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:22:36 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >   Now,
> >         /group_root limit=1G, usage=990M
> >                     /group_A  usage=600M , no limit, no tasks for a while
> >                     /group_B  usage=10M  , no limit, no tasks
> >                     /group_C  usage=380M , no limit, 2 tasks
> > 
> >   A user run a new task in group_B.
> >   In your algorithm, group_A and B and C's memory are reclaimed
> >   to the same extent becasue there is no information to show
> >   "group A's memory are not accessed recently rather than B or C".
> > 
> >   This information is what we want for managing memory.
> > 
> 
> For that sort of implementation, we'll need a common LRU. I actually thought of
> implementing it by sharing a common LRU, but then we would end up with just one
> common LRU at the root :)
> 
> The reclaim algorithm is smart in that it knows what pages are commonly
> accessed. group A will get reclaimed more since those pages are not actively
> referenced. reclaim on group_C will be harder.
Why ? I think isolate_lru_page() removes SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX from each group.

> Simple experiments seem to show that.
> 
please remember the problem as problem and put that in TODO or FIXME, at least.
or add explanation "why this works well" in logical text.
As Andrew Morton said, vaildation for LRU management tend to need long time.


> >>> I'd like to show some other possible implementation of
> >>> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() if I can.
> >>>
> >> Elaborate please!
> >>
> > ok. but, at least, please add
> >   - per-subtree hierarchy flag.
> >   - cgroup_lock to walk list of cgroups somewhere.
> > 
> > I already sent my version "shared LRU" just as a hint for you.
> > It is something extreme but contains something good, I think.
> > 
> >>> Anyway, I have to merge this with mem+swap controller.
> >> Cool! I'll send you an updated version.
> >>
> > 
> > Synchronized LRU patch may help you.
> 
> Let me get a good working version against current -mm and then we'll integrate
> our patches.
> 
A patch set I posted yesterday doesn't work ?
If not, please wait until next mmotm comes out.

-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/