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:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:34:40 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below
 usage

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
> 
> To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> goes after the delta.

I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
implementation significantly.

Since, in contrast to memory.max, memory.high definition allows cgroup
to breach it, I believe it would be better if we spawned an asynchronous
reclaim work from the kernel on write to memory.high instead of doing
this synchronously. I guess we could reuse mem_cgroup->high_work for
that.

Thanks,
Vladimir

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ