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: <20080630131920.68d2cc23.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:19:20 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.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)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
Hmm...I don't convice at this point. (because it's future problem)
At least, please find lock-less approach to check soft-limit.

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/