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: <CAGWkznGnDUvAqX3KCP+HZCyn49XU9=2bV9vfiFbutsQw8mK=hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:10:19 +0800
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        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>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:23 AM Roman Gushchin
<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> It seems like what’s being proposed is an ability to express the protection in % of the current usage rather than an absolute number.
> It’s an equivalent for something like a memory (reclaim) priority: e.g. a cgroup with 80% protection is _always_ reclaimed less aggressively than one with a 20% protection.
>
> That said, I’m not a fan of this idea.
> It might make sense in some reasonable range of usages, but if your workload is simply leaking memory and growing indefinitely, protecting it seems like a bad idea. And the first part can be easily achieved using an userspace tool.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > On Mar 24, 2022, at 7:33 AM, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
ok, I think it could be fixable for memory leak issues. Please refer
to my reply on Chris's comment for more explanation.