linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 1/2] take account of memsw

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:	Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:51:17 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 1/2] take account of memsw

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:07:37 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim checks only mem->res now.
> It should also check mem->memsw when do_swap_account.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>

make sense

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c |   17 +++++++++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 20e1d90..e7806fc 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -567,6 +567,19 @@ done:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
> +	if (do_swap_account) {
> +		if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->res) &&
> +		    res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->memsw))
> +			return 1;
> +	} else
> +		if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->res))
> +			return 1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Dance down the hierarchy if needed to reclaim memory. We remember the
>   * last child we reclaimed from, so that we don't end up penalizing
> @@ -588,7 +601,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
>  	 * have left.
>  	 */
>  	ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(root_mem, gfp_mask, noswap);
> -	if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&root_mem->res))
> +	if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem))
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	next_mem = mem_cgroup_get_first_node(root_mem);
> @@ -602,7 +615,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  		ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(next_mem, gfp_mask, noswap);
> -		if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&root_mem->res))
> +		if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem))
>  			return 0;
>  		cgroup_lock();
>  		next_mem = mem_cgroup_get_next_node(next_mem, root_mem);
> 

--
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/