linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces

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:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:48:21 +0900
From:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Ciju Rajan K <ciju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:11:09 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:58 -0700
> Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
(snip)
> > +When use_hierarchy=0, each cgroup has independent dirty memory usage and limits.
> > +
> > +When use_hierarchy=1, a parent cgroup increasing its dirty memory usage will
> > +compare its total_dirty memory (which includes sum of all child cgroup dirty
> > +memory) to its dirty limits.  This keeps a parent from explicitly exceeding its
> > +dirty limits.  However, a child cgroup can increase its dirty usage without
> > +considering the parent's dirty limits.  Thus the parent's total_dirty can exceed
> > +the parent's dirty limits as a child dirties pages.
> 
> Hmm. in short, dirty_ratio in use_hierarchy=1 doesn't work as an user expects.
> Is this a spec. or a current implementation ?
> 
> I think as following.
>  - add a limitation as "At setting chidlren's dirty_ratio, it must be below parent's.
>    If it exceeds parent's dirty_ratio, EINVAL is returned."
> 
> Could you modify setting memory.dirty_ratio code ?
> Then, parent's dirty_ratio will never exceeds its own. (If I understand correctly.)
> 
> "memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes" will be a bit more complecated, but I think you can.
> 
I agree.

At the first impression, this limitation seems a bit overkill for me, because
we allow memory.limit_in_bytes of a child bigger than that of parent now.
But considering more, the situation is different, because usage_in_bytes never
exceeds limit_in_bytes.


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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/