linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)

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: <1157742641.19884.52.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:10:41 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user
	memory)

On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:26 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:29 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >   
> >>>> BUT: I remind you the talks at OKS/OLS and in previous UBC discussions.
> >>>> It was noted that having a separate interfaces for CPU, I/O bandwidth
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> But, it will be lot simpler for the user to configure/use if they are
> >>> together. We should discuss this also.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> IMHO such unification may only imply that one syscall is used to pass
> >> configuration info into kernel.
> >> Each controller has specific configurating parameters different from the
> >> other ones. E.g. CPU controller must assign a "weight" to each group to
> >> share CPU time accordingly, but what is a "weight" for memory controller?
> >> IO may operate on "bandwidth" and it's not clear what is a "bandwidth" in
> >> Kb/sec for CPU controller and so on.
> >>     
> >
> > CKRM/RG handles this by eliminating the units from the interface and
> > abstracting them to be "shares". Each resource controller converts the
> > shares to its own units and handles properly. 
> >   
> That's what I'm talking about - common syscall/ioct/etc and each controller
> parses its input itself. That's OK for us.

Yes, we can eliminate the "units"(KBs, cycles/ticks, pages etc.,) from
the interface and use a (unitless) number to specify the amount of
resource a resource group/container uses.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/