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: <20060912174058.GA2932@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:10:58 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
Cc:	sekharan@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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 Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:14 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:10:31PM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > The big question is : are containers/RG allowed to use *upto* their
> > limit always? In other words, will you typically setup limits such that
> > sum of all limits = max resource capacity? 
> > 
> 
> If a user is really interested in ensuring that all scheduled jobs (or
> containers) get what they have asked for (guarantees) then making the
> sum of all container limits equal to total system limit is the right
> thing to do.
> 
> > If it is setup like that, then what you are considering as limit is
> > actually guar no?
> > 
> Right.  And if we do it like this then it is up to sysadmin to configure
> the thing right without adding additional logic in kernel.

Perhaps calling it as "limit" in confusing then (otoh it may go down well
with Linus!). I perhaps agree we need to go with one for now (in the
interest of making some progress), but we probably will come back to
this at a later point. For ex, I chanced upon this document:

	www.vmware.com/pdf/vmware_drs_wp.pdf

which explains how supporting a hard limit (in contrast to guar as we
have been discussing) can be usefull sometimes.

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/