linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

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:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:02:41 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:06 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:


> ==
>                 if (scan_global_lru(sc)) {
>                         if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
>                                 continue;
>                         note_zone_scanning_priority(zone, priority);
> 
>                         if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone) &&
>                                                 priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
>                                 continue;       /* Let kswapd poll it */
>                         sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
>                 } else {
>                         /*
>                          * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
>                          * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
>                          */
>                         sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
>                         mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(sc->mem_cgroup,
>                                                         priority);
>                 }
> ==
> 
> First point is (maybe) my mistake. We have to add cpuset hardwall check to memcg
> part. (I will write a patch soon.)
> 

I found my comment seems to say some correct thing..
==
 /*
  * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
  * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
  */
==
When we handle memory shortage, we'll have to change this mind.

But I can think of another example easily...
==
  MemcgA: limit=1G
  CpusetX: mem=0
  CpusetY: mem=1
  taskP = MemcgA+CpusetX
  taskQ = MemcgA+CpusetY
==
In this case, we just want to reduce the usage of memory....nonsense ?

Hmm..I should refresh my brain and revisit this later.
Any inputs are welcome.

Thanks,
-Kame




--
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/