linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

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: <CALvZod5Rrr6ENW5yLNzniFeFmGB=mDRH+guNLmcayTX-_xDAGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:08:26 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

Hi Tejun,

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:05 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, Shakeel.
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:59:33AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Why not make this configurable at the delegation boundary? As you
> > mentioned, there are jobs who want centralized workload manager to
> > watch over their subtrees while there can be jobs which want to
> > monitor their subtree themselves. For example I can have a job which
> > know how to act when one of the children cgroup goes OOM. However if
> > the root of that job goes OOM then the centralized workload manager
> > should do something about it. With this change, how to implement this
> > scenario? How will the central manager differentiates between that a
> > subtree of a job goes OOM or the root of that job? I guess from the
> > discussion it seems like the centralized manager has to traverse that
> > job's subtree to find the source of OOM.
> >
> > Why can't we let the implementation of centralized manager easier by
> > allowing to configure the propagation of these notifications across
> > delegation boundary.
>
> I think the right way to achieve the above would be having separate
> recursive and local counters.
>

Do you envision a separate interface/file for recursive and local
counters? That would make notifications simpler but that is an
additional interface.

Shakeel