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  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, 30 May 2019 08:51:11 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Chris Down <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Tejun Heo <>, Roman Gushchin <>,
        Dennis Zhou <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude

On Wed 29-05-19 23:44:53, Chris Down wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
> > Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong but the new
> > calculation actually means that we always allow to scan even min
> > protected memcgs right?
> We check if the memcg is min protected as a precondition for coming into
> this function at all, so this generally isn't possible. See the
> mem_cgroup_protected MEMCG_PROT_MIN check in shrink_node.

OK, that is the part I was missing, I got confused by checking the min
limit as well here. Thanks for the clarification. A comment would be
handy or do we really need to consider min at all?

> (Of course, it's possible we race with going within protection thresholds
> again, but this patch doesn't make that any better or worse than the
> previous situation.)


With the above clarified. The code the resulting code is much easier to
follow and the overal logic makes sense to me.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <>

Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists