linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy

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:	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:32:53 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy

Hello, Vladmir.

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:27:47PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Of course, we could rework slab merging so that kmem_cache_create
> returned a new dummy cache even if it was actually merged. Such a cache
> would point to the real cache, which would be used for allocations. This
> wouldn't limit slab merging, but this would add one more dereference to
> alloc path, which is even worse.

Hmmm, this could be me not really understanding but why can't we let
all slabs to be merged regardless of SLAB_ACCOUNT flag for root memcg
and point to per-memcg slabs (may be merged among them but most likely
won't matter) for !root.  We're indirecting once anyway, no?

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/