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  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]
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:23:14 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	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 (v3)

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:56:42 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-05 18:04:10]:
> 
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I wrote
> > > > ==
> > > >  if (victim is not over soft-limit)
> > > > ==
> > > > ....Maybe this discussion style is bad and I should explain my approach in patch.
> > > > (I can't write code today, sorry.)
> > > > 
> > 
> > This is an example of my direction, " do it lazy" softlimit.
> > 
> > Maybe this is not perfect but this addresses almost all my concern.
> > I hope this will be an input for you.
> > I didn't divide patch into small pieces intentionally to show a big picture.
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > 
> > An example patch. Don't trust me, this patch may have bugs.
> >
> 
> Well this is not do it lazy, all memcg's are scanned tree is built everytime
> kswapd invokes soft limit reclaim. With 100 cgroups and 5 nodes, we'll
> end up scanning cgroups 500 times. There is no ordering of selected
> victims, so the largest victim might still be running unaffected.
> 
I think of more reasonable one. I'll post today if it goes well.

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists