linux-kernel - 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: <48562BA0.8050200@openvz.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:00:16 +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 -----
>>>> 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 ?
>> (my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
>>
>> 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.
>>
> This was previous request from Paul. (to hierarchy patch set)
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121257010530546&w=2
> 
> I think this version meets his request. and I like this.
> 
> I don't want to waste more weeks. Then, what is bad ?
> removing res_counter_ops is okay ?

Yes. I'd prefer seeing this logic in memory controller w/o additional
hacks in res_counter.

> 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/