linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg

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: <Yjx/3yi7BfH7wLPz@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:27:43 -0400
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        ke wang <ke.wang@...soc.com>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg

I'm confused by the aims of this patch. We already have proportional reclaim 
for memory.min and memory.low, and memory.high is already "proportional" by its 
nature to drive memory back down behind the configured threshold.

Could you please be more clear about what you're trying to achieve and in what 
way the existing proportional reclaim mechanisms are insufficient for you?