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: <4501E077.3030702@watson.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:28:23 -0400
From:	Shailabh Nagar <nagar@...son.ibm.com>
To:	rohitseth@...gle.com
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>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4)	(added	user
 memory)

Rohit Seth wrote:

>> Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a
>> single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially
>> give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever
>> be achieved). 
> 
> What exactly you mean by limited recharging?  
> 

Memory allocated (and hence charged) by a task belonging to one container
being (re)charged to another container to which task moves. Can be done but at
too high a cost so not worth it most of the time.


> As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that
> can be charged to any single container.  And in this case moving a task
> to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory
> accounting pov.
> 
>> But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will
>> also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow
>> middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task.
>>
> 
> That is not true.   It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc.
> You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap.
> 
For cpu time & I/O bandwidth I disagree. Accounting to a multiplicity of
containers/BC over time shouldn't be costly.

Anyway, lets see how the implementation evolves.

> -rohit

-
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/