linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] misc_cgroup: introduce misc.events and misc

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: <CAHVum0dd5dw1rkcf0U7OjW2GX4VTZi4RCcbTph99qDftd=2taA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:10:28 -0700
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
To:     brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mkoutny@...e.com, corbet@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] misc_cgroup: introduce misc.events and misc_events.local

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:24 PM brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Vipin Sharma wrote on 2021/9/14 12:51 上午:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:01 PM brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@...cent.com>
> >>
> >> Introduce misc.events and misc.events.local to make it easier for
> >
> > I thought Tejun only gave go ahead for misc.events and not for
> > misc.events.local.
> >
>
> Maybe I missed something. I think events.local is somewhat useful. For
> example, the events of node A is large. If we need to determine whether
> it is caused by the max of node A, if there is no events.local, then we
> need to traverse the events of the child nodes and compare them with
> node A. This is a bit complicated. If there is events.local, we can do
> it very easily. Should we keep the events.local interface？

Tejun mentioned in his previous email that he prefers the hierarchical
one. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YTuX6Cpv1kg+DHmJ@slm.duckdns.org/

I agree with you that it's easier to identify the constraint cgroup
with the local file. However, there is one downside also, which is if
a cgroup gets deleted then that local information is lost, we will
need a hierarchical reporting to observe the resource constraint. I
will be fine with both files but if I have to choose one I am now more
inclined towards hierarchical (events).

Thanks
Vipin