linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: unify reclaim retry limits with page allocator

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 07:07:56 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: unify reclaim retry limits with page allocator

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:32 AM Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
>
> Reclaim retries have been set to 5 since the beginning of time in
> 66e1707bc346 ("Memory controller: add per cgroup LRU and reclaim").
> However, we now have a generally agreed-upon standard for page reclaim:
> MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES (currently 16), added many years later in
> 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection").
>
> In the absence of a compelling reason to declare an OOM earlier in memcg
> context than page allocator context, it seems reasonable to supplant
> MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES with MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES, making the page
> allocator and memcg internals more similar in semantics when reclaim
> fails to produce results, avoiding premature OOMs or throttling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>