| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4E6F9CC4.2000601@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:11:16 -0300 From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> To: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org> CC: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <xemul@...allels.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Hiroyouki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation On 09/13/2011 03:09 PM, Paul Menage wrote: > Each set of counters (user, kernel, total) will have its own locks, > contention and other overheads to keep up to date. If userspace > doesn't care about one or two of the three, then that's mostly wasted. > > Now it might be that the accounting of all three can be done with > little more overhead than that required to update just a split view or > just a unified view, in which case there's much less argument against > simplifying and tracking/charging/limiting all three. What if they are all updated under the same lock ? The lock argument is very well valid for accounting vs not accounting kernel memory. But once it is accounted, which counter we account to, I think, is less of a problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists