linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] Data structures changes for RSS accounting

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: <45F58B91.4060001@sw.ru>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:19:13 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To:	Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>
CC:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] Data structures changes for RSS accounting

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:16 +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> now VE2 maps the same page. You can't determine whether this page is mapped
>> to this container or another one w/o page->container pointer. 
> 
> Hi Kirill,
> 
> I thought we can always get from the page to the VMA.  rmap provides
> this to us via page->mapping and the 'struct address_space' or anon_vma.
> Do we agree on that?

Not completely. When page is unmapped from the *very last*
user its *first* toucher may already be dead. So we'll never
find out who it was.

> We can also get from the vma to the mm very easily, via vma->vm_mm,
> right?
> 
> We can also get from a task to the container quite easily.  
> 
> So, the only question becomes whether there is a 1:1 relationship
> between mm_structs and containers.  Does each mm_struct belong to one

No. The question is "how to get a container that touched the
page first" which is the same as "how to find mm_struct which
touched the page first". Obviously there's no answer on this
question unless we hold some direct page->container reference.
This may be a hash, a direct on-page pointer, or mirrored
array of pointers.

> and only one container?  Basically, can a threaded process have
> different threads in different containers?
> 
> It seems that we could bridge the gap pretty easily by either assigning
> each mm_struct to a container directly, or putting some kind of
> task-to-mm lookup.  Perhaps just a list like
> mm->tasks_using_this_mm_list.

This could work for reclamation: we scan through all the
mm_struct-s within the container and shrink its' pages, but
we can't make LRU this way.

> Not rocket science, right?
> 
> -- Dave
> 
> -
> 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/
> 

-
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/