linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation

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: <CALdu-PDGpBnVHW7E5NobAwtXop5c03NTmijkk8oB7u-a5LEXww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:46:29 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...allels.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hiroyouki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
>
> What if they are all updated under the same lock ?

Right, that would be the kind of optimization that would remove the
need for worrying about whether or not to account it. It would
probably mean creating some memcg-specific structures like
res-counters that could handle multiple values, since you'd need to
update both the kernel charge and the total charge, in this cgroup
*and* its ancestors.

Paul
--
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/