[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48B69582.4000208@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:09:38 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup(fix critical bug): new handling for tasks file
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> And vmalloc can malloc larger memory than kmalloc, is vmalloc() enough?
>> If not, I think using an array of pages is the best choice.
>
> vmalloc would be simpler, certainly, but it has a higher overhead. And
> since we're dealing with arrays of integers here, it's not too hard to
> manage multiple arrays. Oh, except for sorting them, which would be
> more of a pain. So yes, maybe vmalloc() would be a better choice at
> first.
>
Yep, these are hard. Which method is your favorite?
My original purpose was to fix a bug as I described.
This bug and the problem that offering big enough array for a huge
cgroup are orthogonal!
Could you consider/test that is it a bug as I described(and is it as
critical as I described, maybe I was too nervous)?
And this is also a problem: opening a cgroup.tasks twice or will waste
a lot of _physical_ memory.
Thanks! Lai
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists