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]
Date:	Fri, 2 May 2014 17:48:52 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim

On Fri 02-05-14 11:34:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:11:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > @@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
> > > >  		do {
> > > >  			struct lruvec *lruvec;
> > > >  
> > > > -			/*
> > > > -			 * Memcg might be under its low limit so we have to
> > > > -			 * skip it during the first reclaim round
> > > > -			 */
> > > > -			if (follow_low_limit &&
> > > > -					!mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(memcg, root)) {
> > > > +			/* Memcg might be protected from the reclaim */
> > > > +			if (force_memcg_guarantee &&
> > > 
> > > respect_?  consider_?
> > 
> > enforce_ ?
> 
> A native speaker might be better at this, but to me it seems weird to
> enforce a promise.  honor_memcg_guarantee?

OK, will go with honor. Thanks!
---
>From 3101ce41cc8c0c9691d98054e8811c66a77cd079 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:47:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mmotm: memcg-mm-introduce-lowlimit-reclaim-fix.patch

mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible -> mem_cgroup_within_guarantee
follow_low_limit -> honor_memcg_guarantee
and as suggested by Johannes.
---
 include/linux/memcontrol.h |  6 +++---
 mm/memcontrol.c            | 15 ++++++++-------
 mm/vmscan.c                | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 6c59056f4bc6..c00ccc5f70b9 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ bool __mem_cgroup_same_or_subtree(const struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
 bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
 			const struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
 
-extern bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+extern bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 		struct mem_cgroup *root);
 
 extern struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page);
@@ -291,10 +291,10 @@ static inline struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *page,
 	return &zone->lruvec;
 }
 
-static inline bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 		struct mem_cgroup *root)
 {
-	return true;
+	return false;
 }
 
 static inline struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 7a276c0d141e..58982d18f6ea 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2810,26 +2810,27 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
 }
 
 /**
- * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the
- * reclaim
+ * mem_cgroup_within_guarantee - checks whether given memcg is within its
+ * memory guarantee
  * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim
  * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim)
  *
- * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same
- * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including).
+ * The given group is within its reclaim gurantee if it is below its low limit
+ * or the same applies for any parent up the hierarchy until root (including).
+ * Such a group might be excluded from the reclaim.
  */
-bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 		struct mem_cgroup *root)
 {
 	do {
 		if (!res_counter_low_limit_excess(&memcg->res))
-			return false;
+			return true;
 		if (memcg == root)
 			break;
 
 	} while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)));
 
-	return true;
+	return false;
 }
 
 struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 0f428158254e..5f923999bb79 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2215,8 +2215,18 @@ static inline bool should_continue_reclaim(struct zone *zone,
 	}
 }
 
+/**
+ * __shrink_zone - shrinks a given zone
+ *
+ * @zone: zone to shrink
+ * @sc: scan control with additional reclaim parameters
+ * @honor_memcg_guarantee: do not reclaim memcgs which are within their memory
+ * guarantee
+ *
+ * Returns the number of reclaimed memcgs.
+ */
 static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
-		bool follow_low_limit)
+		bool honor_memcg_guarantee)
 {
 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed, nr_scanned;
 	unsigned nr_scanned_groups = 0;
@@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
 		do {
 			struct lruvec *lruvec;
 
-			/*
-			 * Memcg might be under its low limit so we have to
-			 * skip it during the first reclaim round
-			 */
-			if (follow_low_limit &&
-					!mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(memcg, root)) {
+			/* Memcg might be protected from the reclaim */
+			if (honor_memcg_guarantee &&
+					mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(memcg, root)) {
 				/*
 				 * It would be more optimal to skip the memcg
 				 * subtree now but we do not have a memcg iter
@@ -2289,8 +2296,8 @@ static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
 	if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) {
 		/*
 		 * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim
-		 * because of low limit protection so try again and ignore
-		 * the low limit this time.
+		 * because of the memory guantees for all memcgs in the
+		 * reclaim target so try again and ignore guarantees this time.
 		 */
 		__shrink_zone(zone, sc, false);
 	}
-- 
2.0.0.rc0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ