linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] RSS controller based on process containers (v2)

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: <4627000A.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] RSS controller based on process containers (v2)



Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> *ugh* /me no like.
>>
>> The basic premises seems to be that we can track page owners perfectly
>> (although this patch set does not yet do so), through get/release
> 
> It looks like you have examined the patches not very carefully
> before concluding this. These patches DO track page owners.
> 
> I know that a page may be shared among several containers and
> thus have many owners so we should track all of them. This is
> exactly what we decided not to do half-a-year ago.
> 
> Page sharing accounting is performed in OpenVZ beancounters, and
> this functionality will be pushed to mainline after this simple
> container.
> 
>> operations (on _mapcount).
>>
>> This is simply not true for unmapped pagecache pages. Those receive no
>> 'release' event; (the usage by find_get_page() could be seen as 'get').
> 
> These patches concern the mapped pagecache only. Unmapped pagecache
> control is out of the scope of it since we do not want one container
> to track all the resources.

Unmapped pagecache control and swapcache control is part of
independent pagecache controller that is being developed.  Initial
version was posted at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/06/51
I plan to post a new version based on this patchset in a couple of days.

--Vaidy

>> Also, you don't seem to balance the active/inactive scanning on a per
>> container basis. This skews the per container working set logic.
> 
> This is not true. Balbir sent a patch to the first version of this
> container that added active/inactive balancing to the container.
> I have included this (a bit reworked) patch into this version and
> pointed this fact in the zeroth letter.
> 

 [snip]

-
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/