linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

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: <1345029143.2976.41.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:12:23 +0100
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:33 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > This can
> > be quite confusing.  I am still not sure whether we should mix the two
> > things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to
> > touch the other limit anyway.  Do you have a strong reason to mix the
> > user and kernel counters?
> 
> This is funny, because the first opposition I found to this work was
> "Why would anyone want to limit it separately?" =p
> 
> It seems that a quite common use case is to have a container with a
> unified view of "memory" that it can use the way he likes, be it with
> kernel memory, or user memory. I believe those people would be happy to
> just silently account kernel memory to user memory, or at the most have
> a switch to enable it.
> 
> What gets clear from this back and forth, is that there are people
> interested in both use cases.

Haven't we already had this discussion during the Prague get together?
We discussed the use cases and finally agreed to separate accounting for
k and then k+u mem because that satisfies both the Google and Parallels
cases.  No-one was overjoyed by k and k+u but no-one had a better
suggestion ... is there a better way of doing this that everyone can
agree to?

We do need to get this nailed down because it's the foundation of the
patch series.

James


--
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/