linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure

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, 22 Nov 2011 11:07:07 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kirill@...temov.name>, <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:39:03 -0200
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:

> On 11/17/2011 07:35 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > TCP specific stuff in mm/memcontrol.c, at best that's not nice at all.
> 
> How crucial is that? Thing is that as far as I am concerned, all the 
> memcg people really want the inner layout of struct mem_cgroup to be 
> private to memcontrol.c 

This is just because memcg is just related to memory management and I don't
want it be wide spreaded, 'struct mem_cgroup' has been changed often.

But I don't like to have TCP code in memcgroup.c.

New idea is welcome.

> This means that at some point, we need to have
> at least a wrapper in memcontrol.c that is able to calculate the offset
> of the tcp structure, and since most functions are actually quite 
> simple, that would just make us do more function calls.
> 
> Well, an alternative to that would be to use a void pointer in the newly 
> added struct cg_proto to an already parsed memcg-related field
> (in this case tcp_memcontrol), that would be passed to the functions
> instead of the whole memcg structure. Do you think this would be 
> preferable ?
> 
like this ?

struct mem_cgroup_sub_controls {
	struct mem_cgroup *mem;
	union {
		struct tcp_mem_control tcp;
	} data;
};
/* for loosely coupled controls for memcg */
struct memcg_sub_controls_function
{
	struct memcg_sub_controls	(*create)(struct mem_cgroup *);
	struct memcg_sub_controls	(*destroy)(struct mem_cgroup *);
}

int register_memcg_sub_controls(char *name, 
		struct memcg_sub_controls_function *abis);


struct mem_cgroup {
	.....
	.....
	/* Root memcg will have no sub_controls! */
	struct memcg_sub_controls	*sub_controls[NR_MEMCG_SUB_CONTROLS];
}


Maybe some functions should be exported. 

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/