linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim

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: <20160615004027.GA17127@bbox>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:40:27 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Sangwoo Park <sangwoo2.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim

Hi Johannes,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > These day, there are many platforms available in the embedded market
> > and sometime, they has more hints about workingset than kernel so
> > they want to involve memory management more heavily like android's
> > lowmemory killer and ashmem or user-daemon with lowmemory notifier.
> > 
> > This patch adds add new method for userspace to manage memory
> > efficiently via knob "/proc/<pid>/reclaim" so platform can reclaim
> > any process anytime.
> 
> Cgroups are our canonical way to control system resources on a per
> process or group-of-processes level. I don't like the idea of adding
> ad-hoc interfaces for single-use cases like this.
> 
> For this particular case, you can already stick each app into its own
> cgroup and use memory.force_empty to target-reclaim them.
> 
> Or better yet, set the soft limits / memory.low to guide physical
> memory pressure, once it actually occurs, toward the least-important
> apps? We usually prefer doing work on-demand rather than proactively.
> 
> The one-cgroup-per-app model would give Android much more control and
> would also remove a *lot* of overhead during task switches, see this:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/19/358

I didn't notice that. Thanks for the pointing.
I read the thread you pointed out and read memcg code.

Firstly, I thought one-cgroup-per-app model is abuse of memcg but now
I feel your suggestion does make sense that it's right direction for
control memory from the userspace. Just a concern is that not sure
how hard we can map memory management model from global memory pressure
to per-app pressure model smoothly.

A question is it seems cgroup2 doesn't have per-cgroup swappiness.
Why?

I think we need it in one-cgroup-per-app model.