linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers

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, 13 Feb 2007 12:18:18 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process
 containers

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru> wrote:
>> menage@...gle.com wrote:
>> > This patch implements the BeanCounter resource control abstraction
>> > over generic process containers. It contains the beancounter core
>> > code, plus the numfiles resource counter. It doesn't currently contain
>> > any of the memory tracking code or the code for switching beancounter
>> > context in interrupts.
>>
>> Numfiles is not the most interesting place in beancounters.
>> Kmemsize accounting is much more important actually.
> 
> Right, but the memory accouting was a much bigger and more intrusive
> patch than I wanted to include as an example.

I know it, but numfile doesn't show how good this
infrastructure is.

>>
>> I have already pointed out the fact that this place
>> will hurt performance too much. If we have some context
>> on task this context must
>>   1. be get-ed without any locking
> 
> Would you also be happy with the restriction that a task couldn't be
> moved in/out of a beancounter container by any task other than itself?

I have implementation that moves arbitrary task :)
May be we can do context (container-on-task) handling lockless?

> If so, the beancounter can_attach() method could simply return false
> if current != tsk, and then you'd not need to worry about locking in
> this situation.

I may not, but this patch contains locking that is not good
even for example.

>>   2. be settable to some temporary one without
>>      locking as well
> 
> I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the
> task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was
> non-null?

Of course, but I'm commenting this patchset which doesn't have
this facility.

> Paul
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/