linux-kernel - Re: how to make memory.memsw.failcnt is nonzero

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: <4F2604C5.7050900@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:47:33 +0800
From:	Peng Haitao <penght@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: how to make memory.memsw.failcnt is nonzero


Michal Hocko said the following on 2012-1-6 18:12:
>> If there is something wrong, I think the bug will be in mem_cgroup_do_charge()
>> of mm/memcontrol.c
>>
>> 2210         ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->res, csize, &fail_res);
>> 2211 
>> 2212         if (likely(!ret)) {
...
>> 2221                 flags |= MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP;
>> 2222         } else
>> 2223                 mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res);
>>
>> When hit memory.limit_in_bytes, res_counter_charge() will return -ENOMEM,
>> this will execute line 2222: } else.
>> But I think when hit memory.limit_in_bytes, the function should determine further
>> to memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes.
>> This think is OK?
> 
> I don't think so. We have an invariant (hard limit is "stronger" than
> memsw limit) memory.limit_in_bytes <= memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes so
> when we hit the hard limit we do not have to consider memsw because
> resource counter:
>  a) we already have to do reclaim for hard limit
>  b) we check whether we might swap out later on in
>  mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim (root_memcg->memsw_is_minimum) so we
>  will not end up swapping just to make hard limit ok and go over memsw
>  limit.
> 
> Please also note that we will retry charging after reclaim if there is a
> chance to meet the limit.
> Makes sense?

Yeah.

But I want to test memory.memsw.failcnt is nonzero, how steps?
Thanks.

-- 
Best Regards,
Peng

--
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/