linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix wrong decision of noswap with softlimit.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20110613102358.95637755.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:23:58 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix wrong decision of noswap with
 softlimit.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:22:28 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> Hierarchical reclaim doesn't swap out if memsw and resource limits are
> same (memsw_is_minimum == true) because we would hit mem+swap limit
> anyway (during hard limit reclaim).
> If it comes to the solft limit we shouldn't consider memsw_is_minimum at
> all because it doesn't make much sense. Either the soft limit is bellow
> the hard limit and then we cannot hit mem+swap limit or the direct
> reclaim takes a precedence.

Thank you. I'd like to use your description.

I'll post last week bug fixes series, today.

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/