linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] A clean approach to writeout throttling

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]

Date:	Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:27:59 -0800
From:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] A clean approach to writeout throttling

On Thursday 06 December 2007 12:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:04:14 -0800
>
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> wrote:
> > Any idea
> > how to extend the accounting idea to all tasks involved in a
> > particular block device stack?
>
> SMOP, I'd have thought.

Agreed, which I realized as soon as the post was one minute old.  Sure, 
each helper for the device registers as a helper which puts a pointer 
in the task struct, which points to the accounting info so only one new 
field in task struct.  The more I ponder, the more doable it seems.

> As long as each piece of code which handles 
> data for this stack knows that it's handling data for that stack it
> should be able to account its memory allocations.

Don't forget that we do not actually have a usable notion of "block 
device stack" yet.  Perhaps you are just assuming that is 
easy/imminent?

> The tricky part will be networking allocations because a NIC can of
> course handle data for all sorts of consumers.  But I expect this can
> be greatly simplified with a few heuristics - work out how much
> memory your typical networking stack will allocate for a frame and
> tack that onto the total. Couple of pages worst case..

Actually, the same pattern that Peter and I developed for handling 
network deadlock extends to this accounting concept.  As you say, it's 
a SMOP.

Daniel
--
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/