netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20111216133049.GI3122@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:30:49 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	gthelen@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	kirill@...temov.name, avagin@...allels.com, devel@...nvz.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory
 Controller

On Fri 16-12-11 17:02:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 04:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >So why do we need kmem accounting when tcp (the only user at the moment)
> >doesn't use it?
> 
> Well, a bit historical. I needed a basic placeholder for it, since
> it tcp is officially kmem. As the time passed, I took most of the
> stuff out of this patch to leave just the basics I would need for
> tcp.
> Turns out I ended up focusing on the rest, and some of the stuff was
> left here.
> 
> At one point I merged tcp data into kmem, but then reverted this
> behavior. the kmem counter stayed.
> 
> I agree deferring the whole behavior would be better.
> 
> >>In summary, we still never do non-independent accounting. When we
> >>start doing it for the other caches, We will have to add a test at
> >>charge time as well.
> >
> >So we shouldn't do it as a part of this patchset because the further
> >usage is not clear and I think there will be some real issues with
> >user+kmem accounting (e.g. a proper memcg-oom implementation).
> >Can you just drop this patch?
> 
> Yes, but the whole set is in the net tree already. 

Isn't it only in some for-next branch? Can that one be updated?

> (All other patches are tcp-related but this) Would you mind if I'd
> send a follow up patch removing the kmem files, and leaving just the
> registration functions and basic documentation? (And sorry for that as
> well in advance)

Yes a followup patch would work as well.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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