linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: limit block I/O bandwidth

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:28:44 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Andrea Righi <righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Naveen Gupta <ngupta@...gle.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: limit block I/O bandwidth

* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> [2008-01-20 15:32:40]:

> On Sun, Jan 20 2008, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Your approach is totally flawed, imho. For instance, you don't want a
> process to be able to dirty memory at foo mb/sec but only actually
> write them out at bar mb/sec.
> 
> The noop-iosched changes are also very buggy. The queue back pointer
> breaks reference counting and the task pointer storage assumes the task
> will also always be around. That's of course not the case.
> 
> IOW, you are doing this at the wrong level.

Andrea, Some of the problems pointed out so far have been solved in
the IO controller from OpenVZ (cc'ing Pavel for inputs).

> 
> What problem are you trying to solve?
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/