linux-kernel - Re: Revert for cgroups CPU accounting subsystem patch

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]

Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:10:11 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Revert for cgroups CPU accounting subsystem patch

On Nov 12, 2007 11:00 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Right now, one of the limitations of the CPU controller is that
> the moment you create another control group, the bandwidth gets
> divided by the default number of shares. We can't create groups
> just for monitoring.

Could we get around this with, say, a flag that always treats a CFS
schedulable entity as having a weight equal to the number of runnable
tasks in it? So CPU bandwidth would be shared between groups in
proportion to the number of runnable tasks, which would distribute the
cycles approximately equivalently to them all being separate
schedulable entities.

> cpu_acct fills this gap.

Agreed, but not in the right way IMO.

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/