linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][-mm] Memory controller hierarchy support (v1)

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: <20080421094143.bfd27db3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:41:43 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, menage@...gle.com,
	xemul@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm] Memory controller hierarchy support (v1)

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:04:00 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
> >> -	ret = res_counter_charge_locked(counter, val);
> >> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
> >> +	*limit_exceeded_at = NULL;
> >> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> >> +	for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c->parent) {
> >> +		spin_lock(&c->lock);
> >> +		ret = res_counter_charge_locked(c, val);
> >> +		spin_unlock(&c->lock);
> >> +		if (ret < 0) {
> >> +			*limit_exceeded_at = c;
> >> +			goto unroll;
> >> +		}
> >> +	}
> >> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +
> >> +unroll:
> >> +	for (unroll_c = counter; unroll_c != c; unroll_c = unroll_c->parent) {
> >> +		spin_lock(&unroll_c->lock);
> >> +		res_counter_uncharge_locked(unroll_c, val);
> >> +		spin_unlock(&unroll_c->lock);
> >> +	}
> >> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> > 
> > i wonder how much performance impacts this involves.
> > 
> > it increases the number of atomic ops per charge/uncharge and
> > makes the common case (success) of every charge/uncharge in a system
> > touch a global (ie. root cgroup's) cachelines.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it does. I'll run some tests to see what the overhead looks like. The
> multi-hierarchy feature is very useful though and one of the TODOs is to make
> the feature user selectable (possibly at run-time)
> 
I think multilevel cgroup is useful but this routines handling of hierarchy
seems never good. An easy idea to aginst this is making a child borrow some
amount of charge from its parent for reducing checks.
If you go this way, please show possibility to reducing overhead in your plan.

BTW, do you have ideas of attributes for children<->parent other than 'limit' ?
For example, 'priority' between childlen.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/