linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] Resource counters

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: <20070313163254.GR8755@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:32:54 +0100
From:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] Resource counters

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:41:05PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >>> PS: atomic_add_unless() didn't exist back then
> >>> (at least I think so) but that might be an option
> >>> too ...
> >> I think as far as having this discussion if you can remove that race
> >> people will be more willing to talk about what vserver does.
> > 
> > well, shouldn't be a big deal to brush that patch up
> > (if somebody actually _is_ interested)
> > 
> >> That said anything that uses locks or atomic operations (finer grained
> >> locks) because of the cache line ping pong is going to have scaling
> >> issues on large boxes.
> > 
> > right, but atomic ops have much less impact on most
> > architectures than locks :)
> 
> Right. But atomic_add_unless() is slower as it is
> essentially a loop. See my previous letter in this sub-thread.

fine, nobody actually uses atomic_add_unless(), or am I
missing something?

using two locks will be slower than using a single
lock, adding a loop which counts from 0 to 100 will
eat up some cpu, so what? don't do it :)

> >> So in that sense anything short of per cpu variables sucks at scale.
> >> That said I would much rather get a simple correct version without the
> >> complexity of per cpu counters, before we optimize the counters that
> >> much.
> > 
> > actually I thought about per cpu counters quite a lot, and
> > we (Llinux-VServer) use them for accounting, but please
> > tell me how you use per cpu structures for implementing 
> > limits
> 
> Did you ever look at how get_empty_filp() works?
> I agree, that this is not a "strict" limit, but it
> limits the usage wit some "precision".
> 
> /* off-the-topic */ Herbert, you've lost Balbir again:
> In this sub-thread some letters up Eric wrote a letter with
> Balbir in Cc:. The next reply from you doesn't include him.

I can happily add him to every email I reply to, but he
definitely isn't removed by my mailer (as I already stated,
it might be the mailing list which does this), fact is, the
email arrives here without him in the cc, so a reply does
not contain it either ...

best,
Herbert

-
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/