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  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]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:53:06 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <>
To:     Shakeel Butt <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Tejun Heo <>, Roman Gushchin <>,
        Michal Hocko <>, Linux MM <>,
        Cgroups <>,
        LKML <>,
        Kernel Team <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: prevent starvation when writing

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:59:58AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM Johannes Weiner <> wrote:
> >
> > When a value is written to a cgroup's memory.high control file, the
> > write() context first tries to reclaim the cgroup to size before
> > putting the limit in place for the workload. Concurrent charges from
> > the workload can keep such a write() looping in reclaim indefinitely.
> >
> Is this observed on real workload?


On several production hosts running a particularly aggressive
workload, we've observed writers to memory.high getting stuck for
minutes while consuming significant amount of CPU.

> Any particular reason to remove !reclaimed?

It's purpose so far was to allow successful reclaim to continue
indefinitely, while restricting no-progress loops to 'nr_retries'.

Without the first part, it doesn't really matter whether reclaim is
making progress or not: we do a maximum of 'nr_retries' loops until
the cgroup size meets the new limit, then exit one way or another.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists