linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1

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: <20090331050143.GG16497@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:31:43 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-31 09:06:07]:

> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:57:47 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-03-28 23:41:00]:
> > 
> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-27 13:59:33]:
> > > 
> > > > ==brief test result==
> > > > On 2CPU/1.6GB bytes machine. create group A and B
> > > >   A.  soft limit=300M
> > > >   B.  no soft limit
> > > > 
> > > >   Run a malloc() program on B and allcoate 1G of memory. The program just
> > > >   sleeps after allocating memory and no memory refernce after it.
> > > >   Run make -j 6 and compile the kernel.
> > > > 
> > > >   When vm.swappiness = 60  => 60MB of memory are swapped out from B.
> > > >   When vm.swappiness = 10  => 1MB of memory are swapped out from B    
> > > > 
> > > >   If no soft limit, 350MB of swap out will happen from B.(swapiness=60)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I ran the same tests, booted the machine with mem=1700M and maxcpus=2
> > > 
> > > Here is what I see with
> > 
> > I meant to say, Here is what I see with my patches (v7)
> > 
> 
> your malloc program is like this ?
> 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>     c = malloc(1G);
>     memset(c, 0, 1G);
>     getc();
> }
>

Very similar, instead of memset, we go integer by integer and set it
to 0, do two loops of touching and wait for user input before exiting.
 

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/