linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: Add memory.pressure

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: <20130221230425.GA22792@lizard.fhda.edu>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:04:26 -0800
From:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Leonid Moiseichuk <leonid.moiseichuk@...ia.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	patches@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: Add memory.pressure_level events

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 04:21:28PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Should we really enable memcg for just pressure notificaion in embedded side?
> > I didn't check the size(cgroup + memcg) and performance penalty but I don't want
> > to add unnecessary overhead if it is possible.
> > Do you have a plan to support it via global knob(ie, /proc/mempressure), NOT memcg?
> 
> That should be handled by mempressure at the root cgroup. If that adds
> significant amount of overhead code or memory-wise, we just need to
> fix root cgroup handling in memcg. No reason to further complicate the
> interface which already is pretty complex.

For what it worth, I agree here. Even if we decide to make another
interface to vmpressure (which, say, would not require memcg), then it is
better to keep the API the same: eventfd + control file. That way,
API/ABI-wise there will be no differnce between memcg and non-memcg
kernels, which is cool.

Thanks,
Anton
--
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/