linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

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: <44F4749D.9050403@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:38:45 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>>> ------------- cut ----------------
>>> The task of limiting a container to 4.5GB of memory bottles down to the
>>> question: what to do when the container starts to use more than assigned
>>> 4.5GB of memory?
>>>
>>> At this moment there are only 3 viable alternatives.
>>>
>>> A) Have separate memory management for each container,
>>>   with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism.
>>>   That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there
>>>   is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers.
>>>
>>> B) Return errors on extension of mappings, but not on page faults, where
>>>   memory is actually consumed.
>>>   In this case it makes sense to take into account not only the size 
>>> of used
>>>   memory, but the size of created mappings as well.
>>>   This is approximately what "privvmpages" accounting/limiting 
>>> provides in
>>>   UBC.
>>>
>>> C) Rely on OOM killer.
>>>   This is a fall-back method in UBC, for the case "privvmpages" limits
>>>   still leave the possibility to overload the system.
>>>
>>
>>
>> D) Virtual scan of mm's in the over-limit container
>>
>> E) Modify existing physical scanner to be able to skip pages which
>>    belong to not-over-limit containers.
>>
>> F) Something else ;)
> We fully agree that other possible algorithms can and should exist.
> My idea only is that any of them would need accounting anyway
> (which is the most part of beancounters).
> Throtling, modified scanners etc. can be implemented as a separate
> BC parameters. Thus, an administrator will be able to select
> which policy should be applied to the container which is near its limit.
> 
> So the patches I'm trying to send are a step-by-step accounting of all
> the resources and their simple limitations. More comprehensive limitation
> policy will be built on top of it later.
> 

One of the issues I see is that bean counters are not very flexible. Tasks 
cannot change bean counters dynamically after fork()/exec() that is - can they?


> BTW, UBC page beancounters allow to distinguish pages used by only one
> container and pages which are shared. So scanner can try to reclaim
> container private pages first, thus not influencing other containers.
> 

But can you select the specific container for which we intend to scan pages?

> Thanks,
> Kirill
> 

-- 
	Thanks,
	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
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/