linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Migrate Pages in lieu of discard

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:51:10 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Migrate Pages in lieu of discard

On 10/17/19 9:58 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> My expectation (and I haven't confirmed this) is that the any memory use
>> is accounted to the owning cgroup, whether it is DRAM or PMEM.  memcg
>> limit reclaim and global reclaim both end up doing migrations and
>> neither should have a net effect on the counters.
>>
> Hmm I didn't see the memcg charge migration in the code on demotion.
> So, in the code [patch 3] the counters are being decremented as DRAM
> is freed but not incremented for PMEM.

I had assumed that the migration code was doing this for me.  I'll go
make sure either way.