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:	Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:42:34 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	jmarchan@...hat.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, riel@...hat.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	righi.andrea@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/23] io-controller: blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to 
	track async bios.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:29 AM, KAMEZAWA
Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:11:42 -0400
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > > > - Somebody also gave an example where there is a memory hogging process and
>> > > >  possibly pushes out some processes to swap. It does not sound fair to
>> > > >  charge those proccess for that swap writeout. These processes never
>> > > >  requested swap IO.
>> >
>> > I think that swap writeouts should be charged to the memory hogging
>> > process, because the process consumes more resources and it should get
>> > a penalty.
>> >
>>
>> A process requesting memory gets IO penalty? IMHO, swapping is a kernel
>> mechanism and kernel's way of providing extended RAM. If we want to solve
>> the issue of memory hogging by a process then right way to solve is to use
>> memory controller and not by charging the process for IO activity.
>> Instead, proabably a more suitable way is to charge swap activity to root
>> group (where by default all the kernel related activity goes).
>>
>
> I agree. It't memcg's job.
> (Support dirty_ratio in memcg is necessary, I think)
>
> background-write-out-to-swap-for-memory-shortage should be handled
> as kernel I/O. If swap-out-by-memcg bacause of its limit is a problem,
> dirty_ratio for memcg should be implemetned.

I tend to agree, looks like dirty_ratio will become important along
with overcommit support in the future.

Balbir Singh.
--
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