linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156193744.6479.23.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:55:44 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, hugh@...itas.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory
	accounting	(core)

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:51 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Kirill,
> > 
> > IMO, a UBC with resource constraint(limit in this case) should behave no
> > different than a kernel with limited memory. i.e it should do
> > reclamation before it starts failing allocation requests. It could even
> > do it preemptively.
> first, please notice, that this thread is not about user memory.
> we can discuss it later when about to control user memory. And
> I still need to notice, that different models of user memory control
> can exist. With and without reclamation.
> 
we can talk about it then :)

> > There is no guarantee support which is required for providing QoS.
> where? in UBC? in UBC _there_ are guarentees, even in regard to OOM killer.

I do not see it in the patches you have submitted. May be I overlooked.
Can you please point me the code where guarantee is handled.

> 
> > Each controller modifying the infrastructure code doesn't look good. We
> > can have proper interfaces to add a new resource controller.
> controllers do not modify interfaces nor core. They just add
> themself to the list of resources and setup default limits.
> do you think it is worth creating infrastructure for these
> 2 one-line-changes?

Yes, IMO, it is cleaner. 

Think of the documentation that explains how to write a controller for
UBC.

With a proper interface it will read something like: One have to call
register_controller(char *name) and on success it returns a unique id
which is the id for the controller.

			Vs

With changing lines in the core code: One have to edit the file
filename.c and add a macro to this of macros with an incremented value
for their controller and add the name of their controller to the array
named controller_names[].

I think the first one is cleaner, what do you think ?
 
<snip>

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@...ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/