linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] 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: <20120607102604.GE19842@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:26:10 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/28] kmem limitation for memcg

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:20PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
> all of the previous comments from you, plus fix a bunch of bugs.
> 
> At this point, I consider the series pretty mature. Since last submission
> 2 weeks ago, I focused on broadening the testing coverage. Some bugs were
> fixed, but that of course doesn't mean no bugs exist.
> 
> I believe some of the early patches here are already in some trees around.
> I don't know who should pick this, so if everyone agrees with what's in here,
> please just ack them and tell me which tree I should aim for (-mm? Hocko's?)
> and I'll rebase it.
> 
> I should point out again that most, if not all, of the code in the caches
> are wrapped in static_key areas, meaning they will be completely patched out
> until the first limit is set. Enabling and disabling of static_keys incorporate
> the last fixes for sock memcg, and should be pretty robust.
> 
> I also put a lot of effort, as you will all see, in the proper separation
> of the patches, so the review process is made as easy as the complexity of
> the work allows to.

So I believe that if I want to implement a per kernel stack accounting/limitation,
I need to work on top of your patchset.

What do you think about having some sub kmem accounting based on the caches?
For example there could be a specific accounting per kmem cache.

Like if we use a specific kmem cache to allocate the kernel stack
(as is done by some archs but I can generalize that for those who want
kernel stack accounting), allocations are accounted globally in the memcg as
done in your patchset but also on a seperate counter only for this kmem cache
on the memcg, resulting in a kmem.stack.usage somewhere.

The concept of per kmem cache accounting can be expanded more for any
kind of finegrained kmem accounting.

Thoughts?
--
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/