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
| ||
|
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