linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

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]

Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 17:51:41 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 02:21:52PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:39:30AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >> The interface you're proposing is not really extensible, so we'll likely need to
> >> introduce a new interface like memory.reclaim_ext very soon. Why not create
> >> an extensible API from scratch?
> >> 
> >> I'm looking at cgroup v2 documentation which describes various interface files
> >> formats and it seems like given the number of potential optional arguments
> >> the best option is nested keyed (please, refer to the Interface Files section).
> >> 
> >> E.g. the format can be:
> >> echo "1G type=file nodemask=1-2 timeout=30s" > memory.reclaim
> > 
> > Yeah, that syntax looks perfect.
> > 
> > But why do you think it's not extensible from the current patch? We
> > can add those arguments one by one as we agree on them, and return
> > -EINVAL if somebody passes an unknown parameter.
> > 
> > It seems to me the current proposal is forward-compatible that way
> > (with the current set of keyword pararms being the empty set :-))
> 
> It wasn’t obvious to me. We spoke about positional arguments and then it wasn’t clear how to add them in a backward-compatible way. The last thing we want is a bunch of memory.reclaim* interfaces :)
> 
> So yeah, let’s just describe it properly in the documentation, no code changes are needed.

Sounds good to me!