linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

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]

Message-Id: <1156200259.6479.74.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:44:19 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, hugh@...itas.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	devel@...nvz.org, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:20 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-08-21 am 14:45 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chandra Seetharaman:
> > As I mentioned UBC might be perfect for container resource management,
> > but what I am talking for is resource management _without_ a container.
> 
> There isn't really a difference. UBC counts usage of things. It has to
> know who to charge the thing to but its core concept of the luid isn't a
> container, its more akin to the a departmental or project billing code.

I didn't say it is different. The way it is implemented now has some
restrictions for generic resource management purposes (like ability to
move task around), but they are not a problem for container type usage.
 
> 
> > > 3. is it so BIG obstacle for UBC patch? These 3-lines hooks code which
> > >    is not used?
> 
> Add them later when they prove to be needed. If IBM send a feature that
> needs it then add them in that feature. Everyone is happy it is possible
> to add that hook when needed.

As I mentioned in my reply, I am ok with adding it later.

>  
> > In a non-container situation IMO it will be easier to manage/associate
> > "gold", "silver", "bronze", "plastic" groups than 0, 11, 83 and 113.
> 
> User space issue. Doing that in kernel will lead to some limitations
> later on and end up needing the user space anyway. Consider wanting to
> keep the container name and properties in LDAP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@...ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/