linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup

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]

Message-ID: <20200826181725.GA893402@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:17:25 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup

Chris Down writes:
>Xunlei Pang writes:
>>Add cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this
>>issue, and any other possible issue like meomry.min protection.
>
>I understand the general intent of the patch, but could you clarify 
>your concern around memory protection?

Oh, I see, your concern is just preemption in general rather than a fixing 
anything for the memory protection side. In which case, go for it, but I agree 
with Michael that it would be nice to send v3 with a clarifying comment.

Acked-by: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>