Hello,

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 12:28:03AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
> +/* hash table to keep map of tgid to owner cgroup */
> +DEFINE_HASHTABLE(pid_cg_map_tbl, 7);
> +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pid_cg_map_lock);    /* lock to protect hash table access */
> +
> +/* Keeps mapping of pid to its owning cgroup at rdma level,
> + * This mapping doesn't change, even if process migrates from one to other
> + * rdma cgroup.
> + */
> +struct pid_cg_map {
> +     struct pid *pid;                /* hash key */
> +     struct rdma_cgroup *cg;
> +
> +     struct hlist_node hlist;        /* pid to cgroup hash table link */
> +     atomic_t refcnt;                /* count active user tasks to figure out
> +                                      * when to free the memory
> +                                      */
> +};

Ugh, there's something clearly wrong here.  Why does the rdma
controller need to keep track of pid cgroup membership?

> +static void _dealloc_cg_rpool(struct rdma_cgroup *cg,
> +                           struct cg_resource_pool *rpool)
> +{
> +     spin_lock(&cg->cg_list_lock);
> +
> +     /* if its started getting used by other task,
> +      * before we take the spin lock, then skip,
> +      * freeing it.
> +      */

Please follow CodingStyle.

> +     if (atomic_read(&rpool->refcnt) == 0) {
> +             list_del_init(&rpool->cg_list);
> +             spin_unlock(&cg->cg_list_lock);
> +
> +             _free_cg_rpool(rpool);
> +             return;
> +     }
> +     spin_unlock(&cg->cg_list_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static void dealloc_cg_rpool(struct rdma_cgroup *cg,
> +                          struct cg_resource_pool *rpool)
> +{
> +     /* Don't free the resource pool which is created by the
> +      * user, otherwise we miss the configured limits. We don't
> +      * gain much either by splitting storage of limit and usage.
> +      * So keep it around until user deletes the limits.
> +      */
> +     if (atomic_read(&rpool->creator) == RDMACG_RPOOL_CREATOR_DEFAULT)
> +             _dealloc_cg_rpool(cg, rpool);

I'm pretty sure you can get away with an fixed length array of
counters.  Please keep it simple.  It's a simple hard limit enforcer.
There's no need to create a massive dynamic infrastrucure.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to