netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E7567E0.9010401@parallels.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 Sep 2011 00:39:12 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<gthelen@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory
 Controller


>>   	struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat;
>> @@ -391,6 +404,7 @@ enum charge_type {
>>   #define _MEM			(0)
>>   #define _MEMSWAP		(1)
>>   #define _OOM_TYPE		(2)
>> +#define _KMEM			(3)
>
> Ditto. Can we use enum instead?
Yes we can (tm)

>>   	if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) {
>>   		if (!swap)
>> -			return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
>> +			kmem += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->res, RES_USAGE);
>>   		else
>> -			return res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> +			kmem += res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, RES_USAGE);
>> +
>> +		return kmem;
>>   	}
>>
>>   	val = mem_cgroup_recursive_stat(mem, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE);
>
> No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right?
Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup. 
Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel 
memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is 
just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered 
through all
the proc files that show slab usage, I guess?

>
>> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
>>   		else
>>   			val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name);
>>   		break;
>> +	case _KMEM:
>> +		val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name);
>> +		break;
>> +
>
> Always zero in root cgroup?

Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html