linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Cgroup-based THP 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: <5120497d-d60a-4a4b-a39d-9b1dbe89154c@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:24:55 +0300
From: Stepanov Anatoly <stepanov.anatoly@...wei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC: Gutierrez Asier <gutierrez.asier@...wei-partners.com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <david@...hat.com>, <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	<baohua@...nel.org>, <willy@...radead.org>, <peterx@...hat.com>,
	<hannes@...xchg.org>, <hocko@...nel.org>, <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	<shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<alexander.kozhevnikov@...wei-partners.com>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	<weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
	<judy.chenhui@...wei.com>, <yusongping@...wei.com>, <artem.kuzin@...wei.com>,
	<kang.sun@...wei.com>, <nikita.panov@...wei-partners.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Cgroup-based THP control

On 11/1/2024 4:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 01-11-24 14:54:27, Stepanov Anatoly wrote:
>> On 11/1/2024 10:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 31-10-24 17:37:12, Stepanov Anatoly wrote:
>>>> If we consider the inheritance approach (prctl + launcher), it's fine until we need to change
>>>> THP mode property for several tasks at once, in this case some batch-change approach needed.
>>>
>>> I do not follow. How is this any different from a single process? Or do
>>> you mean to change the mode for an already running process?
>>>
>> yes, for already running set of processes
> 

> Why is that preferred over setting the policy upfront?
Setting the policy in advance is fine, as the first step to do.
But we might not know in advance
which exact policy is the most beneficial for one set of apps or another.

So, i think it's better having an ability to change the policy
on the fly, without app./service restart.

-- 
Anatoly Stepanov, Huawei