From: Nadia.Derbey@bull.net
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: matthltc@us.ibm.com
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] An IPC implementation base on Linux IDRs
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:24:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070831112445.976429000@bull.net> (raw)
A couple of months ago, I dropped a series of patches that introduced the
AKT framework (Automatic Kernel Tunables).
(see thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/16/16)
When reading the patches, people complained that I was trying to treat a
symptom, not the problem itself, and that it'd be better try to rewrite
things where necessary (better data structures / implementations).
(see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/7/248)
I'm trying to achieve this for the IPC case, with this new series of patches:
after proposing a radix tree based implementation at the beginning of July,
I'm now proposing a new ipc implementation based on the Linux idr API.
In the current ipc implementation, the ipc structures pointers are stored
in an array that is resized each time the corresponding tunable is changed
(resized means that a new array is allocated with the new size, the old one
is copied into that new array and the old array is de-allocated).
With this new implementation, there is no need for the array resizing since
the size change becomes "natural".
With this completely dynamic implementation, it becomes possible to set the
kernel default maximum values higher in order to prevent early DoS feedback,
on configurations with a high amount of memory. Even if the maximum values are
huge, no memory space will be wasted, since the allocations are done "on
demand". This is not the case with the existing array based implementation:
an array of the maximum number of entries is allocated only if a single ipc
object is actually created.
These patches should be applied to 2.6.23-rc2, in the following order:
[PATCH 1/6]: ipc_idr.patch
[PATCH 2/6]: ipc_syscalls.patch
[PATCH 3/6]: ipc_get.patch
[PATCH 4/6]: ipc_lock_and_check.patch
[PATCH 5/6]: ipcid_to_idx.patch
[PATCH 6/6]: ipc_buildid.patch
--
Regards,
Nadia
next reply other threads:[~2007-08-31 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-31 11:24 Nadia.Derbey [this message]
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Storing ipcs into IDRs Nadia.Derbey
2007-09-01 22:12 ` Andi Kleen
2007-09-03 10:16 ` Nadia Derbey
2007-09-06 9:33 ` Nadia Derbey
2007-09-07 15:18 ` Nadia Derbey
2007-09-10 20:08 ` Andrew Morton
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/6] Unifying the syscalls code Nadia.Derbey
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/6] Removing the ipc_get() routine Nadia.Derbey
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/6] Integrating ipc_checkid() into ipc_lock() Nadia.Derbey
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/6] Introducing the ipcid_to_idx macro Nadia.Derbey
2007-08-31 11:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] Inlining ipc_buildid() Nadia.Derbey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070831112445.976429000@bull.net \
--to=nadia.derbey@bull.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthltc@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox