linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] introduce struct res_counter

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: <48EA48C2.40803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:50:02 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	righi.andrea@...il.com, agk@...rceware.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk, baramsori72@...il.com,
	Carl Henrik Lunde <chlunde@...g.uio.no>,
	dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>,
	eric.rannaud@...il.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
	Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Marco Innocenti <m.innocenti@...eca.it>, matt@...ehost.com,
	ngupta@...gle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, roberto@...it.it,
	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida@...jp.nec.com>,
	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] introduce struct res_counter_ratelimit

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Could you not either:
>>>
>>> - include these two extra fields in res_counter?
>>> - include res_counter as the first field in a res_counter_ratelimit?
>> The second solution would save some space if the "ratelimit" part is not used.
> 
> Having a "policy" field in res_counter seems like it might be reusable
> as something for other non-ratelimited res_counters. And even if it's
> not, the memory overhead of a couple of extra fields in a res_counter
> is trivial compared to the overhead of resource isolation anyway.
> 
> So my first approach to this would be just extend res_counter, and
> then split them apart later if it turns out that they really do need
> mutually incompatible code/handlers.

Yes! I agree

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/