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: <4505161E.1040401@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:24:06 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>, sekharan@...ibm.com,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	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)

Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:33 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
>>> It appears so.
>>>
>>>> Don't we?
>>>> 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
>>> A "death sentence" guarantee?  I like it. :)
>>>
>>>>   4. anything else
>>>>
>>>> Let's decide what kind of a guarantee we want.
>> I think of guarantees w.r.t resources as the lower limit on the resource.
>> Guarantees and limits can be thought of as the range (guarantee, limit]
>> for the usage of the resource.
>>
>>> I think of it as: "I will be allowed to use this many total pages, and
>>> they are guaranteed not to fail."  (1), I think.  The sum of all of the
>>> system's guarantees must be less than or equal to the amount of free
>>> memory on the machine. 
>> Yes, totally agree.
> 
> Such a guarantee is really a limit and this limit is even harder than
> BC's one :)
> 
> E.g. I have a node with 1Gb of ram and 10 containers with 100Mb
> guarantee each.
> I want to start one more. What shall I do not to break guarantees?

Don't start the new container or change the guarantees of the existing ones
to accommodate this one :) The QoS design (done by the administrator) should
take care of such use-cases. It would be perfectly ok to have a container
that does not care about guarantees to set their guarantee to 0 and set
their limit to the desired value. As Chandra has been stating we need two
parameters (guarantee, limit), either can be optional, but not both.


> 
>>> If we knew to which NUMA node the memory was going to go, we might as
>>> well take the pages out of the allocator.
>>>
>>> -- Dave
>>>


-- 

	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
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/