linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 07/11] VFS hot tracking: Add a /proc interface to control memory usage

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:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:15:00 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:	Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
CC:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/11] VFS hot tracking: Add a /proc interface to control
 memory usage

On 11/06/2013 05:45 AM, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> Introduce a /proc interface hot-mem-high-thresh and
> to cap the memory which is consumed by hot_inode_item
> and hot_range_item, and they will be in the unit of
> 1M bytes.

You don't seem to have any documentation for this, btw... :(

> +		.procname       = "hot-mem-high-thresh",

*Always* put units on these.  I know you mention it in a code comment,
but please also include it in the proc filename too.

In general, why do you have to control the number of these statically?
Shouldn't you just define a shrinker and let memory pressure determine
how many of these we allow to exist?
--
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/