linux-kernel - Re: A path forward to cleaning up dying cgroups?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7nqk5crpp7wi65745uiqgpvlomy3cyg3oaimaoz4fg2h4mf7jp@zclymjsovknp>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:46:18 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 
	Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Allen Pais <apais@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: A path forward to cleaning up dying cgroups?

On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 01:08:42PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 12:50:19PM -0500, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> > 
> > On 2/5/25 12:48, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > > I was just curious as to what the status of the issue described in [1]
> > > is. It appears that the last time someone took a stab at it was in [2].
> 
> If memory serves, the sticking point was whether pages should indeed
> be reparented on cgroup death, or whether they could be moved
> arbitrarily to other cgroups that are still using them.
> 
> It's a bit unfortunate, because the reparenting patches were tested
> and reviewed, and the arbitrary recharging was just an idea that
> ttbomk nobody seriously followed up on afterwards.
> 
> We also recently removed the charge moving code from cgroup1, along
> with the subtle page access/locking/accounting rules it imposed on the
> rest of the MM. I'm doubtful there is much appetite in either camp for
> bringing this back.
> 
> So I would still love to see Muchun's patches merged. They fix a
> seemingly universally experienced operational issue in memcg, and we
> shouldn't hold it up unless somebody actually posts alternative code.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think the recharging (or whatever the alternative) can be a followup
to this. I agree this is a good change.