linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/28] slub: create duplicate cache

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: <4FC52612.5060006@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 23:40:02 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/28] slub: create duplicate cache

On 05/29/2012 11:26 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> But we really need a page to be filled with objects from the same cgroup, and
>> the non-shared objects to be accounted to the right place.
>
> No other subsystem has such a requirement. Even the NUMA nodes are mostly
> suggestions and can be ignored by the allocators to use memory from other
> pages.

Of course it does. Memcg itself has such a requirement. The collective 
set of processes needs to have the pages it uses accounted to it, and 
never go over limit.

>> Otherwise, I don't think we can meet even the lighter of isolation guarantees.
>
> The approach works just fine with NUMA and cpusets. Isolation is mostly
> done on the per node boundaries and you already have per node statistics.

I don't know about cpusets in details, but at least with NUMA, this is 
not an apple-to-apple comparison. a NUMA node is not meant to contain 
you. A container is, and that is why it is called a container.

NUMA just means what is the *best* node to put my memory.
Now, if you actually say, through you syscalls "this is the node it 
should live in", then you have a constraint, that to the best of my 
knowledge is respected.

Now isolation here, is done in the container boundary. (cgroups, to be 
generic).
--
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/