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: <1158001831.12947.16.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:10:31 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	sekharan@...ibm.com
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, balbir@...ibm.com,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added
	user	memory)

On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 14:43 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > > > 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.
> > 
> 
> There could be a default container which doesn't have any guarantee or
> limit. 

First, I think it is critical that we allow processes to run outside of
any container (unless we know for sure that the penalty of running a
process inside a container is very very minimal).

And anything running outside a container should be limited by default
Linux settings.

> When you create containers and assign guarantees to each of them
> make sure that you leave some amount of resource unassigned. 
                           ^^^^^ This will force the "default" container
with limits (indirectly). IMO, the whole guarantee feature gets defeated
the moment you bring in this fuzziness.

> That
> unassigned resources can be used by the default container or can be used
> by containers that want more than their guarantee (and less than their
> limit). This is how CKRM/RG handles this issue.
> 
>  

It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit
should more be treated as something beyond which that resource
consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed.

-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/