linux-kernel - Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)

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, 27 Apr 2012 16:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > Minor matter: that's non-responsive to my suggestion.
> > > 
> > 
> > If it's moved to a new cgroup then we can just go back to the original 
> > point that I made as was trying to avoid: adding #ifdefs all over 
> > mm/memcontrol.c in a dozen or so places.  A mm/hugetlbcg.c would only be 
> > built, natually, when we have "depends on HUGETLB_PAGE" and 
> > linux/hugetlb.h takes care of the rest (setting HUGE_MAX_HSTATE for archs 
> > that don't define it themselves, in other words only one hugepage size).
> 
> And if it isn't moved to a new cgroup then your
> memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is suboptimal.  Why is this so
> hard?
> 

It _should_ be moved to a new cgroup: there's no reason why someone should 
need to enable memcg (and incur ~1% of metadata overhead that comes with 
it) if they just want to seperate a global hugepage pool amongst a set of 
tasks.  Perhaps Aneesh has a reasoning behind this, I dunno.

And yes, memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is a build fix for the 
linux-next breakage.  If it's seperated out to mm/hugetlbcg.c, this is all 
irrelevant.  I'd like to determine the direction of this feature before 
proposing any fixes for build breakage.  In other words, if 
memcg-add-hugetlb-extension.patch is rewritten then 
memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is useless.
--
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/