linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2

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:	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:56:07 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	containers@...ts.osdl.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> honestly, I used res_counter on early version.
> but I got bad performance.

Bad performance on the charge/uncharge?

The only difference I can see is that res_counter uses
spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore(), and you're using plain
spin_lock()/spin_unlock().

Is the overhead of a pushf/cli/popf really going to matter compared
with the overhead of forking/exiting a task?

Or approaching this from the other side, does res_counter really need
irq-safe locking, or is it just being cautious?

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/