linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/3] blk-throttling: detect inactive cgroup

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: <20160121210542.GB3696942@devbig084.prn1.facebook.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:05:43 -0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <tj@...nel.org>,
	<jmoyer@...hat.com>, <Kernel-team@...com>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] blk-throttling: detect inactive cgroup

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:44:05PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:49:19AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > If a cgroup is inactive for some time, it should be excluded from
> > bandwidth calculation.
> 
> I am not sure why do we require this patch. If group is inactive, it
> will not be on service tree and will not contribute to weight hence
> will not contrinute to share.

The share calculation is based on existing cgroups (with this patch,
existing active cgroups). a cgroup is on service tree when it has pending
bios, right? Not having pending bios isn't a condition we should exclude
a cgroup.

Thanks,
Shaohua