linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v4)

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]

Message-Id: <20090306185440.66b92ca3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:54:40 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v4)

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:53:23 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> New Feature: Soft limits for memory resource controller.
> 
> Changelog v4...v3
> 1. Adopted suggestions from Kamezawa to do a per-zone-per-node reclaim
>    while doing soft limit reclaim. We don't record priorities while
>    doing soft reclaim
> 2. Some of the overheads associated with soft limits (like calculating
>    excess each time) is eliminated
> 3. The time_after(jiffies, 0) bug has been fixed
> 4. Tasks are throttled if the mem cgroup they belong to is being soft reclaimed
>    and at the same time tasks are increasing the memory footprint and causing
>    the mem cgroup to exceed its soft limit.
> 
I don't think this "4" is necessary.


> Changelog v3...v2
> 1. Implemented several review comments from Kosaki-San and Kamezawa-San
>    Please see individual changelogs for changes
> 
> Changelog v2...v1
> 1. Soft limits now support hierarchies
> 2. Use spinlocks instead of mutexes for synchronization of the RB tree
> 
> Here is v4 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature
> for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the
> group scheduler in the form of shares. The CPU controllers interpretation
> of shares is very different though. 
> 
> Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where
> the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory
> contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation
> provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not
> for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups
> that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that
> exceeds this limit by the maximum amount.
> 
> If there are no major objections to the patches, I would like to get them
> included in -mm.
> 
You got Nack from me, again ;) And you know why.
I'll post my one later, I hope that one will be good input for you.

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/