linux-kernel - Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

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: <1158774657.8574.65.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:50:57 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, devel@...nvz.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 03:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> (this time to the lists as well)
> 
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>  > I'd much rather containterize the whole reclaim code, which should not
>  > be too hard since he already adds a container pointer to struct page.
> 
> 

Right now the memory handler in this container subsystem is written in
such a way that when existing kernel reclaimer kicks in, it will first
operate on those (container with pages over the limit) pages first.  But
in general I like the notion of containerizing the whole reclaim code.

>  > I still have to reread what Rohit does for file backed pages, that gave
>  > my head a spin.

Please let me know if there is any specific part that isn't making much
sense.

-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/