linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv9 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support

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: <CAG53R5W+k2FHc2oem6jjuW5107heHvmKODntz727ebGYkC2NDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 00:52:08 +0530
From:	Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	lizefan@...wei.com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
	serge@...lyn.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>, raindel@...lanox.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support

Hi Tejun,

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Parav.
>
> It doesn't look like my reviews are getting through.  For now,
>
I have addressed all the review comments that you provided in v5 patch.
I admit that few comments have not followed CodingStyle and I owe to
fix it, which is bad on my part.
I have few 2 questions on your comments, I will ask there.

For cgroup lock - out of 3 proposals, you acknowledged that you are ok
with cgroup specific spin_lock, though you don't see that as big
saving.
Even though it can be made course gained by having single lock for the
whole rdma cgroup subsystem it raises contention among processes of
different cgroups, which is preferable to avoid.
So I have continued to have cgroup specific fine grain lock, which I
believe is ok as this is little efficient for first cut.

Including above one we agreed on almost all the points at design and
implementation level in previous patches.
If you see any issue, I am open to resolve them.

I will address comments given in patch v9.

> Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun