linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: memcontrol: account "kmem" consumers in cgroup2 memory controller

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: <20151210162548.GC11778@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:25:48 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: memcontrol: account "kmem" consumers in cgroup2
 memory controller

On Thu 10-12-15 10:16:27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:28:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 09-12-15 14:30:38, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: allow to disable kmem accounting for cgroup2
> > > 
> > > Kmem accounting might incur overhead that some users can't put up with.
> > > Besides, the implementation is still considered unstable. So let's
> > > provide a way to disable it for those users who aren't happy with it.
> > 
> > Yes there will be users who do not want to pay an additional overhead
> > and still accoplish what they need.
> > I haven't measured the overhead lately - especially after the opt-out ->
> > opt-in change so it might be much lower than my previous ~5% for kbuild
> > load.
> 
> I think switching from accounting *all* slab allocations to accounting
> a list of, what, less than 20 select slabs, counts as a change
> significant enough to entirely invalidate those measurements and never
> bring up that number again in the context of kmem cost, don't you think?

Yes, as I've said the numbers are expected to be much lower. That is
one of the reasons I have acknowledged kmem enabled as a reasonable
default.  There will always be _special_ loads where numbers might look
differently, though, and having a disabling knob is a reasonable thing
to offer with a minimum maintenance overhead. And this is the argument
for the inclusion of the patch from Vladimir.

-- 
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/