linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] kmem limitation 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FAD54E1.6040106@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 15:05:21 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] kmem limitation for memcg

On 05/11/2012 02:44 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting.
> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature - although of course,
> bugs are always there...
>
> As a disclaimer, however, I must say that the slub code is much more stressed
> by me, since I know it better. If you have no more objections to the concepts
> presented, the remaining edges can probably be polished in a rc cycle,
> at the maintainers discretion, of course.
>
> Otherwise, I'll be happy to address any concerns of yours.
>
> Since last submission:
>
>   * memcgs can be properly removed.
>   * We are not charging based on current->mm->owner instead of current
>   * kmem_large allocations for slub got some fixes, specially for the free case
>   * A cache that is registered can be properly removed (common module case)
>     even if it spans memcg children. Slab had some code for that, now it works
>     well with both
>   * A new mechanism for skipping allocations is proposed (patch posted
>     separately already). Now instead of having kmalloc_no_account, we mark
>     a region as non-accountable for memcg.
>
Forgot to mention the ida-based index allocation, instead of keeping our 
own bitmap.
--
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/