linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/memory-tiers: Use page counter to track toptier memory usage

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:12:47 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/memory-tiers: Use page counter to track
 toptier memory usage

On Tue, 2022-06-14 at 17:30 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:


Thanks for your comments.

> When we don't know which pages are being charged, we should still
> charge the usage to toptier (assuming that toptier always include the
> default tier), e.g. from try_charge_memcg().
> 

I delayed the charging of the toptier a bit till we know which page
is being used and the memcg is being assigned to the page.  
That's when mem_cgroup_charge_toptier is invoked. 

Otherwise if we charge to toptier first, we will have additional 
work to deduct the count when pages used are not toptier.

> The idea is that when lower tier memory is not used, memcg->toptier
> and memcg->memory should have the same value. Otherwise, it can cause
> confusions about where the pages of (memcg->memory - memcg->toptier)
> go.

Any difference should be very small as the charge will go into toptier
too quickly. The values will be different even if
memcg->memory is read at slightly different time anyway.

Tim