linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2

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: <20080621180530.E82D.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:10:39 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2

> > Bad performance on the charge/uncharge?
> > 
> > The only difference I can see is that res_counter uses
> > spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore(), and you're using plain
> > spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
> > 
> > Is the overhead of a pushf/cli/popf really going to matter compared
> > with the overhead of forking/exiting a task?
> > 
> > Or approaching this from the other side, does res_counter really need
> > irq-safe locking, or is it just being cautious?
> 
> We really need irq-safe locking. We can end up uncharging from reclaim context
> (called under zone->lru_lock and mem->zone->lru_lock - held with interrupts
> disabled)
> 
> I am going to convert the spin lock to a reader writers lock, so that reads from
> user space do not cause contention. I'll experiment and look at the overhead.

Sorry, late responce.
I'm working on fix current -mm tree regression recently ;)

Note:

I am going to convert spinlock in task limit cgroup to atomic_t.
task limit cgroup has following caractatics.
	- many write (fork, exit)
	- few read 
	- fork() is performance sensitive systemcall.
	  if increase fork overhead, system total performance cause degression.



--
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/