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]
Date:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:19:46 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,,
        Souptick Joarder <>,
        Roman Gushchin <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,, Shakeel Butt <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Minchan Kim <>,
        Tim Murray <>,
        Daniel Colascione <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Jann Horn <>, linux-mm <>,,
        LKML <>,
        kernel-team <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process

On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > on it.
> Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation
> throttling that we can fall back to stop memory depletion. However
> having a way to free up resources that are not needed by a dying
> process quickly would help to avoid throttling which hurts user
> experience.

I am not opposing speeding up the exit time in general. That is a good
thing. Especially for a very large processes (e.g. a DB). But I do not
really think we want to expose an API to control this specific aspect.
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists