linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: add bandwidth management for sched

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:	Tue, 29 May 2012 11:58:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
	michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
	tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
	luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
	insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com,
	jkacur@...hat.com, harald.gustafsson@...csson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: add bandwidth management for sched_dl.

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 13:07 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 05/25/2012 12:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:42 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * Coupling of -dl and -rt bandwidth.
> >> + *
> >> + * Here we check, while setting the system wide bandwidth available
> >> + * for -dl tasks and groups, if the new values are consistent with
> >> + * the system settings for the bandwidth available to -rt entities.
> >> + *
> >> + * IOW, we want to enforce that
> >> + *
> >> + *   rt_bandwidth + dl_bandwidth<= 100%
> >> + *
> >> + * is always true.
> >> + */
> >
> > I was thinking we could do it the other way around, have have
> > dl_bandwidth included in rt_bandwidth.
> >
> 
> If I understand correctly, you are proposing to treat -dl tasks as a
> special case of "real-time" tasks. Then we could reserve some bw to
> "real-time" (rt_bandwidth cap) activities and give a piece of this
> bw to -dl tasks (what remains is for -rt tasks). This is in principle
> nice and useful, but I'm not quite sure that this is the right point
> to achieve this logical behavior.
> I mean, -dl and -rt tasks are separately treated, so it is probably
> cleaner to manage their knobs separately. They have to coexist rather
> than be considered one a sub-case of the other. A better way to go
> for a common cap for them is probably the (long-term) hierarchical
> scheduling mechanism.
> 
> So, I would prefer to keep the interface as is for now, but I can also
> completely misunderstood your thoughts :-P.

The thing is, keeping it separate makes for an impossible configuration
scenario. Esp. once we enable !root usage. The proposed 5% is very
limiting and regular users won't have sufficient privilege to change it.

Also lowering FIFO/RR by default isn't a real option since people expect
that to get all time already (however silly that expectation is).





--
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/