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  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:	Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:50:43 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] mm: memcontrol: eliminate charge reparenting

Hi Johannes,

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:00:32PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The decoupling of css from the user-visible cgroup, word-sized per-cpu
> css reference counters, and css iterators that include offlined groups
> means we can take per-charge css references, continue to reclaim from
> offlined groups, and so get rid of the error-prone charge reparenting.

I haven't reviewed this set yet, but I agree that zapping user memory
reparenting sounds like a sane idea, because reparenting won't let the
css go in most cases anyway due to swap and kmem charges.

However, I think we must reparent list_lru items, otherwise per-memcg
arrays (kmem_caches, list_lrus) will grow uncontrollably due to dead
css's, which is unacceptable. Note it isn't the same as the user memory
reparenting, because we don't need to reparent kmem_cache objects or
charges - they can stay where they are pinning the css till they are
freed, because the memcg_cache_id, which I want to free on offline, is
not used for kmem allocations/frees after css offline. Actually we only
need to empty the list_lru corresponding to the dead memory cgroup,
which is relatively easy to implement. This is what patch 13 of the "Per
memcg slab shrinkers" patch set, which I sent recently, does (see
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/21/64).

What do you think about it?

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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