linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] memcg weighted interleave mempolicy control

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: <ZUz2WiF+LkEtiy2C@memverge.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:10:18 -0500
From:   Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, corbet@....net, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] memcg weighted interleave mempolicy control

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 11:02:23AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-11-23 19:25:14, Gregory Price wrote:
> > This patchset implements weighted interleave and adds a new cgroup
> > sysfs entry: cgroup/memory.interleave_weights (excluded from root).
> 
> Why have you chosen memory controler rather than cpuset controller?
> TBH I do not think memcg is the best fit because traditionally memcg
> accounts consumption rather than memory placement. This means that the
> memory is already allocated when it is charged for a memcg. On the other
> hand cpuset controller is the one to control the allocation placement so
> it would seem a better fit.
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

Wasn't sure between the two, so i tossed it in memcg. Easy relocation,
and the ode should remain basically the same, so I will wait a bit
before throwing out an update.  Assuming we've found the right place
for it, i'll probably drop RFC at that point.

~Gregory