linux-kernel - Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?

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:	Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:13:25 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, prarit@...hat.com,
	andi.kleen@...el.com, m-kosaki@...es.dti.ne.jp,
	dmiyakawa@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:42 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi, Andrew,
> 
> I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in
> memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31?

These?

memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch
memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-checkpatch-fixes.patch
memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-v5.patch


> They don't change
> functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features.
> 
> Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts.
> 

They don't apply terribly well to mainline:

patching file mm/memcontrol.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 70.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 479.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 1295.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 1359.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 1432.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 1514.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 1534.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 1605.
Hunk #9 FAILED at 1798.
Hunk #10 FAILED at 1826.
Hunk #11 FAILED at 1883.
Hunk #12 FAILED at 1981.
Hunk #13 succeeded at 2091 (offset -405 lines).
12 out of 13 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/memcontrol.c.rej
Failed to apply memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability

so maybe you're referring to these:

memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup.patch
memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix.patch
memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix-2.patch

as well.

But then memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch still doesn't
apply.  Maybe memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch depends
on memory-controller-soft-limit-*.patch too.  I stopped looking.

It's a lot of material and a lot of churn.  I'd be more inclined to
proceed with a 2.6.32 merge and then perhaps you can see if you can
come up with a minimal patchset for -stable, see if the -stable
maintainers can be talked into merging it.

--
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/