linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)

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]

Message-Id: <1156209379.11127.15.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:16:19 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	Magnus Damm <magnus@...inux.co.jp>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	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>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, hugh@...itas.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	devel@...nvz.org, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:47 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 07:45 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:08 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > A) Have separate memory management for each container,
> > >    with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism.
> > >    That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there
> > >    is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers.
> > 
> > Hold on here for just a sec...
> > 
> > It is quite possible to do memory management aimed at one container
> > while that container's memory still participates in the main VM.  
> > 
> > There is overhead here, as the LRU scanning mechanisms get less
> > efficient, but I'd rather pay a penalty at LRU scanning time than divide
> > up the VM, or coarsely start failing allocations.
> 
> This could of course be solved with one LRU per container, which is how
> the CKRM memory controller implemented things about a year ago.

Effectively Andrew's idea of faking up nodes is also giving per
container LRUs.

-rohit 

-
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/