linux-kernel - Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?

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:	Fri, 16 May 2014 09:48:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:23:11AM +0800, Michael wang wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 07:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> It's like:
> >>
> >> 	/cgroup/cpu/l1/l2/l3/l4/l5/l6/A
> >>
> >> about level 7, the issue can not be solved any more.
> > 
> > That's pretty retarded and yeah, that's way past the point where things
> > make sense. You might be lucky and have l1-5 as empty/pointless
> > hierarchy so the effective depth is less and then things will work, but
> > *shees*..
> 
> Exactly, that's the simulation of cgroup topology setup by libvirt,
> really doesn't make sense... rather torture than deployment, but they do
> make things like that...

I'm calling it broken and unfit for purpose if it does crazy shit like
that.

There's really not much we can do to fix it either, barring softfloat in
the load-balancer and I'm sure everybody but virt wankers will complain
about _that_.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped