linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50180A42.2050806@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:39:30 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab.

On 07/31/2012 08:30 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the slab part of the kmem limitation mechanism in its last form.  I
>> would like to have comments on it to see if we can agree in its form. I
>> consider it mature, since it doesn't change much in essence over the last
>> forms. However, I would still prefer to defer merging it and merge the
>> stack-only patchset first (even if inside the same merge window). That patchset
>> contains most of the infrastructure needed here, and merging them separately
>> would not only reduce the complexity for reviewers, but allow us a chance to
>> have independent testing on them both. I would also likely benefit from some
>> extra testing, to make sure the recent changes didn't introduce anything bad.
> 
> What is the status of the stack-only limitation patchset BTW? Does anybody oppose
> to its merging?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
Andrew said he would like to see the slab patches in a relatively mature
state first.

I do believe they are in such a state. There are bugs, that I am working
on - but I don't see anything that would change them significantly at
this point.

If Andrew is happy with what he saw in this thread, I could post those
again.

--
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/