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]
Message-ID: <YrQe5A+FXnbgOR1f@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:05:56 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmpressure: don't count userspace-induced reclaim as
 memory pressure

On Thu 23-06-22 00:05:30, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> Commit e22c6ed90aa9 ("mm: memcontrol: don't count limit-setting reclaim
> as memory pressure") made sure that memory reclaim that is induced by
> userspace (limit-setting, proactive reclaim, ..) is not counted as
> memory pressure for the purposes of psi.
> 
> Instead of counting psi inside try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(), callers
> from try_charge() and reclaim_high() wrap the call to
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() with psi handlers.
> 
> However, vmpressure is still counted in these cases where reclaim is
> directly induced by userspace. This patch makes sure vmpressure is not
> counted in those operations, in the same way as psi. Since vmpressure
> calls need to happen deeper within the reclaim path, the same approach
> could not be followed. Hence, a new "controlled" flag is added to struct
> scan_control to flag a reclaim operation that is controlled by
> userspace. This flag is set by limit-setting and proactive reclaim
> operations, and is used to count vmpressure correctly.
> 
> To prevent future divergence of psi and vmpressure, commit e22c6ed90aa9
> ("mm: memcontrol: don't count limit-setting reclaim as memory pressure")
> is effectively reverted and the same flag is used to control psi as
> well.

Why do we need to add this is a legacy interface now? Are there any
pre-existing users who realized this is bugging them? Please be more
specific about the usecase.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ