netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller

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: <CAHH2K0YUK9CVk4Ds3cPA=6SNjX0y79nSo+Vy8r1H5PiVXA1RWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:20:52 -0800
From:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name,
	avagin@...allels.com, devel@...nvz.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> +Memory limits as specified by the standard Memory Controller may or may not
> +take kernel memory into consideration. This is achieved through the file
> +memory.independent_kmem_limit. A Value different than 0 will allow for kernel

s/Value/value/

It is probably worth documenting the default value for
memory.independent_kmem_limit?  I figure it would be zero at root and
and inherited from parents.  But I think the implementation differs.

> @@ -277,6 +281,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>         */
>        unsigned long   move_charge_at_immigrate;
>        /*
> +        * Should kernel memory limits be stabilished independently
> +        * from user memory ?
> +        */
> +       int             kmem_independent_accounting;

I have no serious objection, but a full int seems like overkill for a
boolean value.

> +static int register_kmem_files(struct cgroup *cont, struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       ret = cgroup_add_files(cont, ss, kmem_cgroup_files,
> +                              ARRAY_SIZE(kmem_cgroup_files));
> +       return ret;

If you want to this function could be condensed down to:
  return cgroup_add_files(...);
--
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