netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics when raising allocated

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]

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:21:25 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics
 when raising allocated

On 10/24/23 3:08 PM, Paolo Abeni Wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 20:00 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> Before sockets became aware of net-memcg's memory pressure since
>> commit e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code."), the memory
>> usage would be granted to raise if below average even when under
>> protocol's pressure. This provides fairness among the sockets of
>> same protocol.
>>
>> That commit changes this because the heuristic will also be
>> effective when only memcg is under pressure which makes no sense.
>> So revert that behavior.
>>
>> After reverting, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() no longer considers
>> memcg's pressure. As memcgs are isolated from each other w.r.t.
>> memory accounting, consuming one's budget won't affect others.
>> So except the places where buffer sizes are needed to be tuned,
>> allow workloads to use the memory they are provisioned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
>> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
>> Acked-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> 
> It's totally not clear to me why you changed the target tree from net-
> next to net ?!? This is net-next material, I asked to strip the fixes
> tag exactly for that reason.

Sorry I misunderstood your suggestion..

> 
> Since there is agreement on this series and we are late in the cycle, I
> would avoid a re-post (we can apply the series to net-next anyway) but
> any clarification on the target tree change will be appreciated,
> thanks!

Please apply to net-next.

Thanks!
	Abel