linux-kernel - Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a memory cgroup

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803201514340.14003@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a memory cgroup

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:

> >>> It would probably be best to limit the 
> >>> nr_pages to the amount that needs to be reclaimed, though, rather than 
> >>> over reclaiming.
> >>
> >> How do you achieve that? The charging path is not synchornized with the
> >> shrinking one at all.
> >>
> > 
> > The point is to get a better guess at how many pages, up to 
> > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, that need to be reclaimed instead of 1.
> > 
> >>> If you wanted to be invasive, you could change page_counter_limit() to 
> >>> return the count - limit, fix up the callers that look for -EBUSY, and 
> >>> then use max(val, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) as your nr_pages.
> >>
> >> I am not sure I understand
> >>
> > 
> > Have page_counter_limit() return the number of pages over limit, i.e. 
> > count - limit, since it compares the two anyway.  Fix up existing callers 
> > and then clamp that value to SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX in 
> > mem_cgroup_resize_limit().  It's a more accurate guess than either 1 or 
> > 1024.
> > 
> 
> JFYI, it's never 1, it's always SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX.
> See try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages():
> ....	
> 	struct scan_control sc = {
> 		.nr_to_reclaim = max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> 

Is SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX the best answer if I'm lowering the limit by 1GB?