linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached

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]

Message-ID: <1455829507.15821.69.camel@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:05:07 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in
 /proc/meminfo::Cached

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 15:36 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> The semantics of Cached including shmem and kernel pages have been
> this way forever, dictated by the single-LRU implementation rather
> 
They may have been that way forever,
but they have also been confusing to
users forever, so ...

> than optimal semantics. So it's an uncomfortable proposal to change
> it
> now. But what other way to fix this for existing users? What other
> way
> to make the interface more intuitive for future users? And what could
> break by removing it now? I guess somebody who already subtracts
> Shmem
> from Cached.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>

-- 
All rights reversed

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)