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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:47:16 +0400 From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> To: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com CC: 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: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com wrote: > ----- 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" Actually no, what I want is not to put indirections level when not required. But keeping res_counter as small as possible is also my wish. :) >>> 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. Oops... I'm looking at 2.6.26-rc5-mm1's res_counter and don't see such. I tried to follow the changes in res_counter, but it looks like I've already missed something. What do you mean by "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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists