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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:59:51 +0530 From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v3) * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 15:19:53]: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:37:26 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 14:35:18]: > > > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:16:31 +0530 > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 11:03:23]: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:00:11 +0530 > > > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Changelog v2...v1 > > > > > > 1. Add support for res_counter_check_soft_limit_locked. This is used > > > > > > by the hierarchy code. > > > > > > > > > > > > Add an interface to allow get/set of soft limits. Soft limits for memory plus > > > > > > swap controller (memsw) is currently not supported. Resource counters have > > > > > > been enhanced to support soft limits and new type RES_SOFT_LIMIT has been > > > > > > added. Unlike hard limits, soft limits can be directly set and do not > > > > > > need any reclaim or checks before setting them to a newer value. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kamezawa-San raised a question as to whether soft limit should belong > > > > > > to res_counter. Since all resources understand the basic concepts of > > > > > > hard and soft limits, it is justified to add soft limits here. Soft limits > > > > > > are a generic resource usage feature, even file system quotas support > > > > > > soft limits. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't convice adding more logics to res_counter is a good to do, yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though it is extensible and you pay the cost only when soft > > > > limits is turned on? Can you show me why you are not convinced? > > > > > > > Inserting more codes (like "if") to res_counter itself is not welcome.. > > > I think res_counter is too complex as counter already. > > > > > > > Darn.. we better stop all code development! > > > I don't say such a thing. My point is we have to keep res_counter as light-weight > as possible. If there are alternatives, we should use that. > Any sort of new feature like this needs support from res_counters, we need to extend them to remain consistent with out design and code. Yes, if there are better alternatives, I would use them. BTW, I am working on a newer scheme to change res_counter locking, but not sure if that should come in the way of this development. -- Balbir -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists