linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] CGroups: cgroup member list enhancement/fix

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]

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/