linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fdc2a811-0a05-b706-a6f5-b686507caf56@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:45:12 -0800
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates



On 2/22/21 12:41 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

>>
>>
>> Ah, that's true.  The added check for soft_limit_excess is not needed.
>>
>> Do you think it is still a good idea to add patch 3 to
>> restrict the uncharge update in page batch of the same node and cgroup?
> 
> I would rather drop it. The less the soft limit reclaim code is spread
> around the better.
> 

Let's drop patch 3 then.  I find patch 2 is the most critical one in this series.  
Without that patch some cgroups exceeds the soft limit excess very badly.

Tim