linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Introduce per-cgroup compression priority

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: <20251030092258.2576-1-zhongjinji@honor.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:22:58 +0800
From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@...or.com>
To: <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<christoph.boehmwalder@...bit.com>, <corbet@....net>,
	<drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>, <dsterba@...e.com>, <feng.han@...or.com>,
	<hannes@...xchg.org>, <jinji.z.zhong@...il.com>, <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <liulu.liu@...or.com>,
	<mhocko@...nel.org>, <minchan@...nel.org>, <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	<muchun.song@...ux.dev>, <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
	<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	<shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, <terrelln@...com>, <zhongjinji@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Introduce per-cgroup compression priority

> Hello,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 01:05:07AM +0000, jinji zhong wrote:
> > This patch introduces a per-cgroup compression priority mechanism,
> > where different compression priorities map to different algorithms.
> > This allows administrators to select appropriate compression
> > algorithms on a per-cgroup basis.
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to tie this to cgroups. Is there something
> preventing this from following the process hierarchy?
> Thanks.
Hello, Tejun,

There is also a layer of page tables between the process and the page,
so making it follow the process hierarchy would be complicated.
But you make a good point; it may indeed be unnecessary to introduce
a separate per-cgroup compression priority. As Nhat suggested,
we could try reusing the per-cgroup swap priority.

> -- 
> tejun