linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached

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:	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:03:38 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in
 /proc/meminfo::Cached

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:40:45 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> What are your thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > My thoughts are NAK.  A misleading stat is not so bad as a
> > > misleading stat whose meaning we change in some random kernel.
> > >
> > > By all means improve Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt on Cached.
> > > By all means promote Active(file)+Inactive(file)-Buffers as often a
> > > better measure (though Buffers itself is obscure to me - is it intended
> > > usually to approximate resident FS metadata?).  By all means work on
> > > /proc/meminfo-v2 (though that may entail dispiritingly long discussions).
> > >
> > > We have to assume that Cached has been useful to some people, and that
> > > they've learnt to subtract Shmem from it, if slow or no swap concerns them.
> > >
> > > Added Konstantin to Cc: he's had valuable experience of people learning
> > > to adapt to the numbers that we put out.
> > >
> > 
> > I think everything will ok. Subtraction of shmem isn't widespread practice,
> > more like secret knowledge. This wasn't documented and people who use
> > this should be aware that this might stop working at any time. So, ACK.
> 
> It worries me as well - we're deliberately altering the behaviour of
> existing userspace code.  Not all of those alterations will be welcome!
> 
> We could add a shiny new field into meminfo and train people to migrate
> to that.  But that would just be a sum of already-available fields.  In
> an ideal world we could solve all of this with documentation and
> cluebatting (and some apologizing!).

Ah, I missed this, and just sent a redundant addition to the thread;
followed by this doubly redundant addition.

Hugh