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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists