linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control

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: <3a4d858c-0605-c5fc-4a9e-f05cf221d6ac@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:27:21 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org
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>,
        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 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory
 control

On 8/18/20 5:14 AM, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of
>> physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in
>> a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim
>> memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough
>> to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup
>> to be around or below the "memory.high" limit.
>>
>> Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate
>> that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case,
>> the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing.
> Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we
> slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits.
>
I missed that there are already allocator throttling done in upstream 
code. So I will need to reexamine if this patch is necessary or not.

Thanks,
Longman