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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:11:05 +0200 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> To: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com> Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>, Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface On Fri 08-04-22 09:43:03, Dan Schatzberg wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:57:40AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > +static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf, > > + size_t nbytes, loff_t off) > > +{ > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of)); > > + unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > > + unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0; > > + int err; > > + > > + buf = strstrip(buf); > > + err = page_counter_memparse(buf, "", &nr_to_reclaim); > > Is there a reason not to support "max"? Empty string seems odd to me > here. I have to say I have missed the special meaning of the empty string here and I agree this would indeed really weird. Does cgroup core even call here? cgroup_file_write seems to drop !nbytes input. Regarding "max" as a possible input. I am not really sure to be honest. I can imagine that it could be legit to simply reclaim all the charges (e.g. before removing the memcg) which should be achieveable by reclaiming the reported consumption. Or what exactly should be the semantic? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists