linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

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:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:28:58 +0400
From:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

Andi Kleen wrote:
>>D) Virtual scan of mm's in the over-limit container
>>
>>E) Modify existing physical scanner to be able to skip pages which
>>   belong to not-over-limit containers.
> 
> 
> The same applies to dentries/inodes too, doesn't it? But their
> scan is already virtual so their LRUs could be just split into
> a per container list (but then didn't Christoph L. plan to 
> rewrite that code anyways?)
how do you propose to handle shared files in this case?

> For memory my guess would be that (E) would be easier than (D) for user/file
> memory though less efficient.

Kirill

-
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/