linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] psi: Don't account force reclaim as memory pressure

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: <20190615155831.GA1307@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Sat, 15 Jun 2019 23:58:31 +0800
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] psi: Don't account force reclaim as memory pressure

Hi Xunlei,

Xunlei Pang writes:
>There're several cases like resize and force_empty that don't
>need to account to psi, otherwise is misleading.

I'm afraid I'm quite confused by this patch. Why do you think accounting for 
force reclaim in PSI is misleading? I completely expect that force reclaim 
should still be accounted for as memory pressure, can you present some reason 
why it shouldn't be?