linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change

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: <11706925.1213605137616.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:32:17 +0900 (JST)
From:	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, menage@...gle.com,
	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yamamoto@...inux.co.jp,
	nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp, lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter:  handle limit change

----- Original Message -----

>kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>>>> I think when I did all in memcg, someone will comment that "why do that
>>>> all in memcg ? please implement generic one to avoid code duplication"
>>> Hm... But we're choosing between
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit
>>>                           ->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> With the sizeof(void *)-bytes difference in res_counter, nNo?
>>>
>> I can't catch what you mean. What is res_counter_set_limit here ?
>
>It's res_counter_resize_limit from your patch, sorry for the confusion.
>
>> (my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
>
>I meant, that we have to add 4 bytes (8 on 64-bit arches) on the
>struct res_counter to store the pointer on the res_counter_ops.
>
Okay, maye all you want is "don't increase the size of res_counter"

>> Is it so strange to add following algorithm in res_counter?
>> ==
>> set_limit -> fail -> shrink -> set limit -> fail ->shrink
>> -> success -> return 0
>> ==
>> I think this is enough generic.
>
>It is, but my point is - we're calling the set_limit (this is a
>res_counter_resize_limit from your patch, sorry for the confusion again)
>routine right from the cgroup's write callback and thus can call
>the desired "ops->shrink_usage" directly, w/o additional level of
>indirection.
>
Hmm, to do that, I'd like to remove strategy function from res_counter.
Ok? 

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/