linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] memcg: VM overcommit accounting and handling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <484E3BA4.3000606@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:30:29 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	menage@...gle.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] memcg: VM overcommit accounting and handling

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:32:58 +0200
>>> Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Provide distinct cgroup VM overcommit accounting and handling using the memory
>>>> resource controller.
>>>>
>>> Could you explain the benefits of this even when we have memrlimit controller ?
>>> (If unsure, see 2.6.26-rc5-mm1 and search memrlimit controller.)
>>>
>>> And this kind of virtual-address-handling things should be implemented on
>>> memrlimit controller (means not on memory-resource-controller.).
>>> It seems this patch doesn't need to handle page_group.
>>>
>>> Considering hierarchy, putting several kinds of features on one controller is
>>> not good, I think. Balbir, how do you think ?
>>>
>> I would tend to agree. With the memrlimit controller, can't we do this in user
>> space now? Figure out the overcommit value and based on that setup the memrlimit?
> 
> I also agree with Balbir and Kamezawa. Separate controller for VM (i.e. vma-s
> lengths) is more preferable, rather than yet another fancy feature on top of 
> the existing rss one.
> 

Yep! it seems I totally miss the memrlimit controller. I was trying to
implement pretty the same functionalities, using a different approach.
However, I agree that a separate controller seems to be a better
solution.

Thank you all for pointing in the right direction. I'll test memrlimit
controller and give a feedback.

-Andrea
--
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/