linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm: memcg awareness

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: <CANRm+Cxi4qupXkYyZpPbvHcLkuWGxin4+w7EC+z0+Aidi5+B5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:04:20 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm: memcg awareness

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 15:57, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 17-03-21 13:46:24, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> >
> > KVM allocations in the arm kvm code which are tied to the life
> > of the VM process should be charged to the VM process's cgroup.
>
> How much memory are we talking about?
>
> > This will help the memcg controler to do the right decisions.
>
> This is a bit vague. What is the right decision? AFAICS none of that
> memory is considered during oom victim selection. The only thing memcg
> controler can help with is to contain and account this additional
> memory. This might help to better isolate multiple workloads on the same
> system. Maybe this is what you wanted to say? Or maybe this is a way to
> prevent untrusted users from consuming a lot of memory?

It is explained in this patchset for x86 kvm which is upstream, I
think I don't need to copy and paste. :)

    Wanpeng