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, 03 Sep 2009 11:24:23 +0900 (JST) From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> To: vgoyal@...hat.com Cc: nauman@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, jmarchan@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/23] io-controller: blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to track async bios. Hi Vivek, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > > > - Somebody also gave an example where there is a memory hogging process and > > > > > > possibly pushes out some processes to swap. It does not sound fair to > > > > > > charge those proccess for that swap writeout. These processes never > > > > > > requested swap IO. > > > > > > > > I think that swap writeouts should be charged to the memory hogging > > > > process, because the process consumes more resources and it should get > > > > a penalty. > > > > > > > > > > A process requesting memory gets IO penalty? IMHO, swapping is a kernel > > > mechanism and kernel's way of providing extended RAM. If we want to solve > > > the issue of memory hogging by a process then right way to solve is to use > > > memory controller and not by charging the process for IO activity. > > > Instead, proabably a more suitable way is to charge swap activity to root > > > group (where by default all the kernel related activity goes). > > > > No. In the current blkio-cgroup, a process which uses a large amount > > of memory gets penalty, not a memory requester. > > > > At ioband level you just get to see bio and page. How do you decide wheter > this bio is being issued by a process which is a memory hog? > > In fact requester of memory could be anybody. It could be memory hog or a > different process. So are you saying that you got a mechanism where you > can detect that a process is memory hog and charge swap activity to it. > IOW, if there are two processes A and B and assume A is the memory hog and > then B requests for memory which triggers lot of swap IO, then you can > charge all that IO to memory hog A? When an annoymou page is allocated, blkio-cgroup sets an ID to the page. And then when the page is going to swap out, dm-ioband can know who the owner of the page is by retrieving ID from the page. In the above case, since the pages of the process A are swapped-out, dm-ioband charges swap IO to the process A. > Can you please point me to the relevant code in dm-ioband? > > IMHO, to keep things simple, all swapping activity should be charged to > root group and be considered as kernel activity and user space not be > charged for that. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists