linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5e33c94d-d580-2e80-6818-bfb55a9a8a48@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:51:41 +0530
From:	Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Redmond <u93410091@...il.com>,
	"ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" <zhaojunmin@...wei.com>,
	Juneho Choi <juno.choi@....com>,
	Sangwoo Park <sangwoo2.park@....com>,
	Chan Gyun Jeong <chan.jeong@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim


On 6/15/2016 6:27 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> Yeb, I read Johannes's thread which suggests one-cgroup-per-app model.
> It does make sense to me. It is worth to try although I guess it's not
> easy to control memory usage on demand, not proactively.
> If we can do, maybe we don't need per-process reclaim policy which
> is rather coarse-grained model of reclaim POV.
> However, a concern with one-cgroup-per-app model is LRU list size
> of a cgroup is much smaller so how LRU aging works well and
> LRU churing(e.g., compaction) effect would be severe than old.
And I was thinking what would vmpressure mean and how to use it when cgroup is per task.
>
> I guess codeaurora tried memcg model for android.
> Could you share if you know something?
>
We tried, but had issues with charge migration and then Johannes suggested per task cgroup.
But that's not tried yet.

Thanks