linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:24:59 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:35:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm, this isn't really a common situation that I'd thought about, but it
> > > seems reasonable to make the boundaries when in low reclaim to be between
> > > min and low, rather than 0 and low. I'll add another patch with that. Thanks
> >
> > It's not a stopper, so I'm perfectly fine with a follow-up patch.
> 
> Did this happen?
> 
> I'm still trying to get this five month old patchset unstuck :(.  The
> review status is: 
> 
> [1/3] mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim
> Acked-by: Johannes
> Reviewed-by: Roman
> 
> [2/3] mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination
> Acked-by: Johannes
> 
> [3/3] mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection
> Reviewed-by: Roman

I forgot to send out the actual ack-tag on #, so I just did. I was
involved in the discussions that led to that patch, the code looks
good to me, and it's what we've been using internally for a while
without any hiccups.

> I do have a note here that mhocko intended to take a closer look but I
> don't recall whether that happened.

Michal acked #3 in 20190530065111.GC6703@...p22.suse.cz. Afaik not the
others, but #3 also doesn't make a whole lot of sense without #1...

> a) say what the hell and merge them or
> b) sit on them for another cycle or
> c) drop them and ask Chris for a resend so we can start again.

Michal, would you have time to take another look this week? Otherwise,
I think everyone who would review them has done so.