linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem

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: <6599ad830701111633j2ae65807sad393d2dad44a260@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:33:48 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	balbir@...ibm.com
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	xemul@...ru, serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem

On 1/10/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I have run into a problem running this patch on a powerpc box. Basically,
> the machine panics as soon as I mount the container filesystem with

This is a multi-processor system?

My guess is that it's a race in the subsystem API that I've been
meaning to deal with for some time - basically I've been using
(<foo>_subsys.subsys_id != -1) to indicate that <foo> is ready for
use, but there's a brief window during subsystem registration where
that's not actually true.

I'll add an "active" field in the container_subsys structure, which
isn't set until registration is completed, and subsystems should use
that instead. container_register_subsys() will set it just prior to
releasing callback_mutex, and cpu_acct.c (and other subsystems) will
check <foo>_subsys.active rather than (<foo>_subsys.subsys_id != -1)

> I am trying to figure out the reason for the panic and trying to find
> a fix. Since the introduction of whole hierarchy system, the debugging
> has gotten a bit harder and taking longer, hence I was wondering if you
> had any clues about the problem
>

Yes, the multi-hierarchy support does make the whole code a little
more complex - but people presented reasonable scenarios where a
single container tree for all resource controllers just wasn't
flexible enough.

Paul
-
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/