linux-kernel - Re: cgroup_disable=memory for 2.6.25?

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:	Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:57:14 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup_disable=memory for 2.6.25?

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
> 
> I'm rather surprised that nobody has pushed -mm's
> 
> cgroups-add-cgroup-support-for-enabling-controllers-at-boot-time.patch
> cgroups-add-cgroup-support-for-enabling-controllers-at-boot-time-fix-boot-option-parsing.patch
> memory-controller-make-memory-resource-control-aware-of-boot-options.patch
> 
> into 2.6.25: which was what I'd expected when I first suggested that
> distros might want a way to build with the potential for mem cgroups,
> but be able to switch off their significant overhead for everyone not
> interested.
> 
> Ballpark figures, I'm trying to get this question out rather than
> processing the exact numbers: CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR adds 15%
> overhead to the affected paths, booting with cgroup_disable=memory
> cuts that back to 1% overhead (due to slightly bigger struct page).
> 
> I'm no expert on distros, they may have no interest whatever in
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y; and the rest of us can easily build
> with or without it, or apply the cgroup_disable=memory patches.
> 
> But if those patches serve a purpose, shouldn't they be in 2.6.25?

Hi, Hugh,

I expected those patches to make it into 2.6.25. But ever since 2.6.25-rc5-mm1,
the next -mm was for 2.6.25-rc8. I have been meaning to follow up with Andrew,
but lost with some other patches.

Andrew,

Could we please push these patches upstream before 2.6.25? Or is it too late?


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/