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: <20190130192712.GA21279@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:27:12 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.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

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:11:44AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:07 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Michal.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:50:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Yeah, cgroup.events and .stat files as some of the local stats would
> > > > be useful too, so if we don't flip memory.events we'll end up with sth
> > > > like cgroup.events.local, memory.events.tree and memory.stats.local,
> > > > which is gonna be hilarious.
> > >
> > > Why cannot we simply have memory.events_tree and be done with it? Sure
> > > the file names are not goin to be consistent which is a minus but that
> > > ship has already sailed some time ago.
> >
> > Because the overall cost of shitty interface will be way higher in the
> > longer term.  cgroup2 interface is far from perfect but is way better
> > than cgroup1 especially for the memory controller.  Why do you think
> > that is?
> >
> 
> I thought you are fine with the separate interface for the hierarchical events.

Every other file in cgroup2 is hierarchical, but for recursive
memory.events you'd need to read memory.events_tree?

Do we hate our users that much? :(