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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists