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]

Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:43:54 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	sekharan@...ibm.com
Cc:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, balbir@...ibm.com,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user
	memory)

On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 12:23 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:33 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> > Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think
> > >> this can
> > >
> > > IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
> > > infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
> > > different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
> > > guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.
> > I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
> > Don't we?
> 
> may be (I am not sure :), lets get it clarified.
>  
> > Guarantee may be one of
> > 
> >   1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
> >   2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
> >   3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
> >   4. anything else
> 
> I would say (1) with slight modification
>    "container will be able to touch _at least_ that number of pages"
> 

Does this scheme support running of tasks outside of containers on the
same platform where you have tasks running inside containers.  If so
then how will you ensure processes running out side any container will
not leave less than the total guaranteed memory to different containers.



-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/