[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200817143044.GA1987@chrisdown.name>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:30:44 +0100
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained control of over
memory.high action
Astractly, I think this really overcomplicates the API a lot. If these are
truly generally useful (and I think that remains to be demonstrated), they
should be additions to the existing API, rather than a sidestep with prctl.
I also worry about some other more concrete things:
1. Doesn't this allow unprivileged applications to potentially bypass
memory.high constraints set by a system administrator?
2. What's the purpose of PR_MEMACT_KILL, compared to memory.max?
3. Why add this entirely separate signal delivery path when we already have
eventfd/poll/inotify support, which makes a lot more sense for modern
applications?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists