linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 16/18] vmpressure: in-kernel notifications

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: <20131220115359.225f7503@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:53:59 -0500
From:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
Cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>, dchinner@...hat.com,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 16/18] vmpressure: in-kernel notifications

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:46:05 +0400
Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:03:32 -0500
> > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The answer for all of your questions above can be summarized by noting
> >> > that for the lack of other users (at the time), this patch does the bare minimum
> >> > for memcg needs. I agree, for instance, that it would be good to pass the level
> >> > but since memcg won't do anything with thta, I didn't pass it.
> >> >
> >> > That should be extended if you need to.
> >>
> >> That works for me. That is, including this minimal version first and
> >> extending it when we get in-tree users.
> >
> > Btw, there's something I was thinking just right now. If/when we
> > convert shrink functions to use this API, they will come to depend
> > on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. IOW, they won't work if CONFIG_MEMCG=n.
> >
> > Is this acceptable (this is an honest question)? Because today, they
> > do work when CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Should those shrink functions use the
> > shrinker API as a fallback?
> 
> If you have a non-memcg user, that should obviously be available for
> CONFIG_MEMCG=n

OK, which means we'll have to change it, right? Because, if I'm not
missing something, today vmpressure does depend on CONFIG_MEMCG=y.
--
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/