linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

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: <4FA14F5D.4040504@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2012 12:14:37 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

On 04/30/2012 06:43 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>> I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
>> >  of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
>> >  series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
>> >  user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
>> >  to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
>> >  is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
>> >  that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
>> >  shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
>> >  out of the experimental state.
> We will have to be careful for cache destruction.
> I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset.
>
> I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when
> destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in
> pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in
> the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be
> moved into the cgroup).

I found some problems here as well.
I am trying to work ontop of what Kamezawa posted for pre_destroy() 
rework. I have one or two incorrect uncharging issues to solve, that's 
actually what is holding me for posting a new version.

expected soon

--
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/