linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.20 71/92] Revert "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects"

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: <20190218173825.GB4525@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:38:25 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Wolfgang Walter <linux@...m.de>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Spock <dairinin@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.20 71/92] Revert "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a
 relatively small number of objects"

On Mon 18-02-19 17:16:34, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:43 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.20-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let
> > > me know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > commit a9a238e83fbb0df31c3b9b67003f8f9d1d1b6c96 upstream.
> > > 
> > > This reverts commit 172b06c32b9497 ("mm: slowly shrink slabs with a
> > > relatively small number of objects").
> > 
> > This revert will result in the slab caches of dead
> > cgroups with a small number of remaining objects never
> > getting reclaimed, which can be a memory leak in some
> > configurations.
> > 
> > But hey, that's your tradeoff to make.
> 
> That's what is in Linus's tree.  Should we somehow diverge from that?

I believe we should start working on a memcg specific solution to
minimize regressions for others and start a more complex solution from
there.

Can we special case dead memcgs in the slab reclaim and reclaim more
aggressively?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs