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]
Message-ID: <b2bde6a6-a242-4eeb-9a65-4081e8ac5df7@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:21:25 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.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: Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics
 when raising allocated

On 10/24/23 3:08 PM, Paolo Abeni Wrote:
> 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.

Sorry I misunderstood your suggestion..

> 
> 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!

Please apply to net-next.

Thanks!
	Abel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ