linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Make transparent hugepages cpuset aware

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306201334460.24145@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Make transparent hugepages cpuset aware

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> > I'm suspecting that you're referring to enlarged rss because of 
> > khugepaged's max_ptes_none and because you're abusing the purpose of 
> > cpusets for containerization.
> 
> Why is containerization an abuse?  What's wrong with renting out chunks
> of a big box farm on the fly like a task motel?  If a realtime customer
> checks in, he's not gonna be thrilled about sharing a room.
> 

We "abused" cpusets for containerization for years, I'm not implying any 
negative connotation to it, see the 
Documentation/x86/x86_64/fake-numa-for-cpusets document that I wrote.  It 
doesn't suggest that we should be controlling thp through cpusets; if he's 
complaining about static binaries where he can't use a malloc hook then 
why not make it per-process so users don't have to configure cpusets to 
control it?
--
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/