linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Directed kmem charging

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:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:58:38 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Directed kmem charging

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Shakeel,
>
> this looks generally reasonable to me.
>
> However, patch 1 introduces API that isn't used until patch 2 and 3,
> which makes reviewing harder since you have to jump back and forth
> between emails. Please fold patch 1 and introduce API along with the
> users.
>

Thanks a lot for the review. Ack, I will do as you suggested in next version.

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:13:24PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > This patchset introduces memcg variant memory allocation functions.  The
> > caller can explicitly pass the memcg to charge for kmem allocations.
> > Currently the kernel, for __GFP_ACCOUNT memory allocation requests,
> > extract the memcg of the current task to charge for the kmem allocation.
> > This patch series introduces kmem allocation functions where the caller
> > can pass the pointer to the remote memcg.  The remote memcg will be
> > charged for the allocation instead of the memcg of the caller.  However
> > the caller must have a reference to the remote memcg.  This patch series
> > also introduces scope API for targeted memcg charging. So, all the
> > __GFP_ACCOUNT alloctions within the specified scope will be charged to
> > the given target memcg.
>
> Can you open with the rationale for the series, i.e. the problem
> statement (fsnotify and bh memory footprint), *then* follow with the
> proposed solution?
>

Sure.

thanks,
Shakeel