| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: jbottomley@...allels.com Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, glommer@...allels.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, devel@...nvz.org, kirill@...temov.name, gthelen@...gle.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure From: James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:27:12 +0000 > Ping on this, please. We're blocked on this patch set until we can get > an ack that the approach is acceptable to network people. __sk_mem_schedule is now more expensive, because instead of short-circuiting the majority of the function's logic when "allocated <= prot->sysctl_mem[0]" and immediately returning 1, the whole rest of the function is run. The static branch protecting all of the cgroup code seems to be enabled if any memory based cgroup'ing is enabled. What if people use the memory cgroup facility but not for sockets? I am to understand that, of the very few people who are going to use this stuff in any capacity, this would be a common usage. TCP specific stuff in mm/memcontrol.c, at best that's not nice at all. Otherwise looks mostly good. -- 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