linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling

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: <20081104131637.68fbe055.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:16:37 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	rientjes@...gle.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	menage@...gle.com, dfults@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:53:08 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:47 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is the revised cpuset writeback throttling patchset
> > 
> > I'm all confused about why this is a cpuset thing rather than a cgroups
> > thing.  What are the relationships here?
> > 
> > I mean, writeback throttling _should_ operate upon a control group
> > (more specifically: a memcg), yes?  I guess you're assuming a 1:1
> > relationship here?
> 
> I think the main reason is that we have per-node vmstats so the cpuset
> extention is relatively easy. Whereas we do not currently maintain
> vmstats on a cgroup level - although I imagine that could be remedied.

It didn't look easy to me - it added a lot more code in places which are
already wicked complex.

I'm trying to understand where this is all coming from and what fits
into where.  Fiddling with a cpuset's mems_allowed for purposes of
memory partitioning is all nasty 2007 technology, isn't it?  Does a raw
cpuset-based control such as this have a future?


--
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/