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  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]
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:42:57 +0100
From:   Chris Down <>
To:     Michal Hocko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Add the drop_cache interface for cgroup v2

Michal Hocko writes:
>On Mon 21-09-20 16:02:55, wrote:
>> From: Chunxin Zang <>
>> In the cgroup v1, we have 'force_mepty' interface. This is very
>> useful for userspace to actively release memory. But the cgroup
>> v2 does not.
>> This patch reuse cgroup v1's function, but have a new name for
>> the interface. Because I think 'drop_cache' may be is easier to
>> understand :)
>This should really explain a usecase. Global drop_caches is a terrible
>interface and it has caused many problems in the past. People have
>learned to use it as a remedy to any problem they might see and cause
>other problems without realizing that. This is the reason why we even
>log each attempt to drop caches.
>I would rather not repeat the same mistake on the memcg level unless
>there is a very strong reason for it.

I agree with Michal. We already have ways to do best-effort memory release on 
cgroup v2, primarily with memory.high. Singling out a category of memory for 
reclaim has historically proved to be a fool's errand.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists