linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management

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, 4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
	balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, pj@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:36:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ug, I didn't know this.  Had I been there (sorry) I'd have disagreed with
> this whole strategy.
> 
> I thought the most recently posted CKRM core was a fine piece of code.  It
> provides the machinery for grouping tasks together and the machinery for
> establishing and viewing those groupings via configfs, and other such
> common functionality.  My 20-minute impression was that this code was an
> easy merge and it was just awaiting some useful controllers to come along.
> 
> And now we've dumped the good infrastructure and instead we've contentrated
> on the controller, wired up via some imaginative ab^H^Hreuse of the cpuset
> layer.

Andrew,
	CPUset was used in this patch series primarily because it
represent a task-grouping mechanism already in the kernel and because
people at the BoF wanted to start with something simple. The idea of using 
cpusets here was not to push this as a final solution, but use it as a means to 
discuss the effects of task-grouping on CPU scheduler.

We had be more than happy to work with the ckrm core which was posted last.
In fact I had sent out the same cpu controller against ckrm core itself last
time around to Nick/Ingo.

> Right.  We won't be controlling memory, numtasks, disk, network etc
> controllers via cpusets, will we?

Agreed. Using CPUset interface makes sense mainly for cpu and memory. 

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a cpuset isn't the appropriate machinery to be
> using to group tasks.
> 
> And if this whole resource-control effort is to end up being successful, it
> should have as core infrastructure a flexible, appropriate and uniform way
> of grouping tasks together and of getting data into and out of those
> aggregates.  We already have that, don't we?

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/