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: <b11ce701-e824-793c-cc7f-4c3bbe08cf80@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:30:02 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>, 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 5:27 AM, Chris Down wrote:
> peterz@...radead.org writes:
>> 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.
>
> We already do that since v5.4. I'm wondering whether Waiman's customer 
> is just running with a too-old kernel without 0e4b01df865 ("mm, memcg: 
> throttle allocators when failing reclaim over memory.high") backported.
>
The fact is that we don't have that in RHEL8 yet and cgroup v2 is still 
not the default at the moment.

I am planning to backport the throttling patches to RHEL and hopefully 
can switch to use cgroup v2 soon.

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ