linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers

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: <45D189B0.6090702@sw.ru>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:49:36 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.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: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process
 containers

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru> wrote:
>>
>> I have implementation that moves arbitrary task :)
> 
> Is that the one that calls stop_machine() in order to move a task
> around? That seemed a little heavyweight ...

Nope :) I've rewritten it completely.

>> May be we can do context (container-on-task) handling lockless?
> 
> What did you have in mind?

The example patch is attached. Fits 2.6.20-rc6-mm3.

>> > I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the
>> > task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was
>> > non-null?
>>
>> Of course, but I'm commenting this patchset which doesn't have
>> this facility.
> 
> OK, I can add the concept in to the example too.
> 
> Paul
> 


View attachment "diff-task-context" of type "text/plain" (5445 bytes)