Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753347AbdLVMl0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 07:41:26 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:49034 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbdLVMlV (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 07:41:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:41:22 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Paolo Bonzini , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 108/159] kvm, mm: account kvm related kmem slabs to kmemcg Message-ID: <20171222124122.GA30743@kroah.com> References: <20171222084623.668990192@linuxfoundation.org> <20171222084629.570989756@linuxfoundation.org> <20171222093407.GN4831@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171222093407.GN4831@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1424 Lines: 35 On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:34:07AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 22-12-17 09:46:33, Greg KH wrote: > > 4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Shakeel Butt > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 46bea48ac241fe0b413805952dda74dd0c09ba8b ] > > > > The kvm slabs can consume a significant amount of system memory > > and indeed in our production environment we have observed that > > a lot of machines are spending significant amount of memory that > > can not be left as system memory overhead. Also the allocations > > from these slabs can be triggered directly by user space applications > > which has access to kvm and thus a buggy application can leak > > such memory. So, these caches should be accounted to kmemcg. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > The patch is not marked for stable, neither it fixes an existing bug. > It is a nice to have thing for sure but I am wondering how this got > through stable-filter. Sasha picked it out, and it seemed like a sane thing to backport. If you think it's not worthy, I'll gladly drop it, but it seemed like such a simple bugfix to include. thanks, greg k-h