linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE

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:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:07:36 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 22-08-22 08:09:01, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > > To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we
> > > > ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top
> > > > level having min and low setup appropriately. More specifically
> > > > memory.min equal to size of netperf binary and memory.low double of
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > a similar feedback to the test case description as with other patches.
> >
> > What more info should I add to the description? Why did I set up min
> > and low or something else?
>
> I do see why you wanted to keep the test consistent over those three
> patches. I would just drop the reference to the protection configuration
> because it likely doesn't make much of an impact, does it? It is the
> multi cpu setup and false sharing that makes the real difference. Or am
> I wrong in assuming that?
>

No, you are correct. I will cleanup the commit message in the next version.