linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150205222522.GA10580@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:25:22 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon_vma

Hey,

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote:
> >  	A
> >  	+-B    (usage=2M lim=3M min=2M hosted_usage=2M)
> >  	  +-C  (usage=0  lim=2M min=1M shared_usage=2M)
> >  	  +-D  (usage=0  lim=2M min=1M shared_usage=2M)
> >  	  \-E  (usage=0  lim=2M min=0)
...
> Maybe, but I want to understand more about how pressure works in the
> child.  As C (or D) allocates non shared memory does it perform reclaim
> to ensure that its (C.usage + C.shared_usage < C.lim).  Given C's

Yes.

> shared_usage is linked into B.LRU it wouldn't be naturally reclaimable
> by C.  Are you thinking that charge failures on cgroups with non zero
> shared_usage would, as needed, induce reclaim of parent's hosted_usage?

Hmmm.... I'm not really sure but why not?  If we properly account for
the low protection when pushing inodes to the parent, I don't think
it'd break anything.  IOW, allow the amount beyond the sum of low
limits to be reclaimed when one of the sharers is under pressure.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/