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: <3373261.1213606902401.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:01:42 +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 -----
>> 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.
>
"not required" ? I think you miss the point that this patch implements some
feedback algorithm in res_counter. If res_counter doesn't support it,
Okay, I'll do in memcg. But please see this request from Paul in the prev vers
ion.
 http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121257010530546&w=2
And what benefits we can get by implementing feedback per subcgroups ?

>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"?
>
Please ignore. my confusion.
"don't call res_counter_write() at set limit" is 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/