linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

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: <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Hmm, that is the case where "share" works well. Why soft-limit ?
> i/o conroller doesn't support share ? (I don' know sorry.)
> 

Share is a proportional allocation of a resource. Typically that resource is
soft-limits, but not necessarily. If we re-use resource counters, my expectation
is that

A share implementation would under-neath use soft-limits.

> yes. what I want to say is you should take care of this.
> 

Yes, it will

> Anyway, I think you should revisit the whole memory reclaim and fixes small bugs?
> which doesn't meet soft-limit.
> 

I'll revisit the full thing, I am revisiting parts of it as I write the soft
limit feature.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/