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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:46:17 +0530 From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Cc: lizf@...fujitzu.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, libcg-devel <libcg-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bblum@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] CGroups: cgroup member list enhancement/fix * menage@...gle.com <menage@...gle.com> [2009-07-13 23:49:16]: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Balbir Singh<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >> Waiting for the next scheduling point might be too long, since a > >> thread can block for arbitrary amounts of time and keeping the marker > >> around for arbitrary time (unless we add a new task_struct field) > >> would be tricky. Marking the cgroup or tgid as being migrated which > >> then triggers the extra synchronization in the fork path (but which > >> isn't needed at other times) is probably where we'll end up. > > > > > > Hmm... but we would not need that information till we schedule the > > tasks, adding a field to task_struct is what I had in mind. > > Waiting until schedule to move the threads would result in them still > showing up in the old "tasks" file until they next ran, which would be > confusing and misleading. > Yes, agreed, even first access to the data struture based lazy migration might not be too helpful, since it can be very context dependent. > As a first cut, we were planning to add an rwsem that gets taken for > read in cgroup_fork(), released in cgroup_post_fork(), and taken for > write when moving an entire process to a new cgroup; not ideal > performance-wise, but safe. > > If adding a field to task_struct is an option, then the rwsem could be > per thread-group leader, which would reduce contention. > We should also document that moving large processes with several threads can be expensive. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists