linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rework mem

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: <50A3C42F.9020901@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:17:51 +0100
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"Ying Han" <yinghan@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator

On 11/13/2012 04:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi all,
> this patch set tries to make mem_cgroup_iter saner in the way how it
> walks hierarchies. css->id based traversal is far from being ideal as it
> is not deterministic because it depends on the creation ordering.
> 
> Diffstat looks promising but it is fair the say that the biggest cleanup is
> just css_get_next removal. The memcg code has grown a bit but I think it is
> worth the resulting outcome (the sanity ;)).
> 
> The first patch fixes a potential misbehaving which I haven't seen but the
> fix is needed for the later patches anyway. We could take it alone as well
> but I do not have any bug report to base the fix on.
> 
> The second patch replaces css_get_next by cgroup iterators which are
> scheduled for 3.8 in Tejun's tree and I depend on the following two patches:
> fe1e904c cgroup: implement generic child / descendant walk macros
> 7e187c6c cgroup: use rculist ops for cgroup->children
> 
> The third patch is an attempt for simplification of the mem_cgroup_iter. It
> basically removes all css usages to make the code easier. The next patch
> removes the big while(!memcg) loop around the iterating logic. It could have
> been folded into #3 but I rather have the rework separate from the code
> moving noise.
> 
> The last patch just removes css_get_next as there is no user for it any
> longer.
> 
> I am also thinking that leaf-to-root iteration makes more sense but this
> patch is not included in the series yet because I have to think some
> more about the justification.
> 
> So far I didn't get to testing but I am posting this early if everybody is
> OK with this change.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 

Why can't we reuse the scheduler iterator and move it to kernel/cgroup.c
? It already exists, provide sane ordering, and only relies on parent
information - which cgroup core already have - to do the walk.

The only minor problem is that we'll have to handle the damn
use_hierarchy case, so we may not be able to blindly rely on
cgroup->parent. But maybe we can, if we don't guarantee any particular
leaf-order.

--
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/