[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120313082818.GA5421@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:28:18 +0800
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To: Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>
Cc: minchan@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Control page reclaim granularity
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:38:56PM +0530, Kautuk Consul wrote:
> >
> > I agree, but that's not my point.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that we probably don't want to give normal
> > unprivileged usermode apps
> > the capability to set the mapping to AS_UNEVICTABLE as anyone can then
> > write an application
> > that hogs memory without allowing the kernel to free it through memory reclaim.
Yes, I think so. But it seems that there has some codes that are
possible to be abused. For example, as I said previously, applications
can mmap a normal data file with PROT_EXEC flag. Then this file gets a
high priority to keep in memory (commit: 8cab4754). So my point is that
we cannot control applications how to use these mechanisms. We just
provide them and let applications to choose how to use them.
:-)
Regards,
Zheng
>
> Sorry, I mean :
> "... that hogs kernel unmapped page-cache memory without allowing the
> kernel to free it through memory reclaim."
--
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