linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] kernel/cgroups: Add "dmem" memory accounting cgroup.

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: <80c49a80-d49c-4ca5-9568-9f7950618275@lankhorst.se>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 15:53:13 +0100
From: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...khorst.se>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
 Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Friedrich Vock <friedrich.vock@....de>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] kernel/cgroups: Add "dmem" memory accounting
 cgroup.

Den 2024-12-13 kl. 14:03, skrev Maxime Ripard:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the new update!
> 
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 02:44:00PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> New update. Instead of calling it the 'dev' cgroup, it's now the
>> 'dmem' cgroup.
>>
>> Because it only deals with memory regions, the UAPI has been updated
>> to use dmem.min/low/max/current, and to make the API cleaner, the
>> names are changed too.
> 
> The API is much nicer, and fits much better into other frameworks too.
> 
>> dmem.current could contain a line like:
>> "drm/0000:03:00.0/vram0 1073741824"
>>
>> But I think using "drm/card0/vram0" instead of PCIID would perhaps be
>> good too. I'm open to changing it to that based on feedback.
> 
> Do we have any sort of guarantee over the name card0 being stable across
> reboots?
> 
> I also wonder if we should have a "total" device that limits the amount
> of memory we can allocate from any region?
I don't think it is useful. Say your app can use 1 GB of main memory or 
2 GB of VRAM, it wouldn't make sense to limit the total of those. In a 
lot of cases there is only 1 region, so the total of that would still be 
the same.

On top, we just separated the management of each region, adding a 
'total' would require unseparating it again. :-)

I'm happy with this version I think. I don't think more changes for the
base are needed.

Cheers,
~Maarten