linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics when raising allocated

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:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:08:03 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics when
 raising allocated

On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 20:00 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> Before sockets became aware of net-memcg's memory pressure since
> commit e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code."), the memory
> usage would be granted to raise if below average even when under
> protocol's pressure. This provides fairness among the sockets of
> same protocol.
> 
> That commit changes this because the heuristic will also be
> effective when only memcg is under pressure which makes no sense.
> So revert that behavior.
> 
> After reverting, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() no longer considers
> memcg's pressure. As memcgs are isolated from each other w.r.t.
> memory accounting, consuming one's budget won't affect others.
> So except the places where buffer sizes are needed to be tuned,
> allow workloads to use the memory they are provisioned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Acked-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>

It's totally not clear to me why you changed the target tree from net-
next to net ?!? This is net-next material, I asked to strip the fixes
tag exactly for that reason.

Since there is agreement on this series and we are late in the cycle, I
would avoid a re-post (we can apply the series to net-next anyway) but
any clarification on the target tree change will be appreciated,
thanks!

Paolo