linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

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:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:00:16 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
Cc:	yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp, righi.andrea@...il.com,
	menage@...gle.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, agk@...rceware.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk, baramsori72@...il.com,
	chlunde@...g.uio.no, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dpshah@...gle.com,
	eric.rannaud@...il.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, matt@...ehost.com, dradford@...ehost.com,
	ngupta@...gle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, roberto@...it.it,
	s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST)
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> wrote:

> In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated dynamically,
>    - Sometimes quite a large amount of memory get marked dirty.
>      In this case it requires more kernel memory than that of the
>      current implementation.
>    - The operation is expansive due to memory allocations and exclusive
>      controls by such as spinlocks.
> 
> In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated by delayed allocation, 
>   - It makes the operation complicated and expensive, because
>     sometimes a bio has to be created in the context of other
>     processes, such as aio and swap-out operation.
> 
> I'd prefer a simple and lightweight implementation. bio-cgroup only
> needs 4bytes unlike memory controller. The reason why bio-cgroup chose
> this approach is to minimize the overhead.
> 
My point is, plz do your best to reduce memory usage here. You increase
size of page_cgroup just because you cannot increase size of struct page.
It's not be sane reason to increase size of this object.
It's a cheat in my point of view.


Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/