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: <1158109818.4800.39.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:10:18 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	rohitseth@...gle.com
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	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>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource
	beancounters	(v4)	(added	user	memory)

On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:39 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
<snip>
> > yes, it would be there, but is not heavy, IMO.
> 
> I think anything greater than 1% could be a concern for people who are
> not very interested in containers but would be forced to live with them.

If they are not interested in resource management and/or containers, i
do not think they need to pay.
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And anything running outside a container should be limited by default
> > > > > Linux settings.
> > > > 
> > > > note that the resource available to the default RG will be (total system
> > > > resource - allocated to RGs).
> > > 
> > > I think it will be preferable to not change the existing behavior for
> > > applications that are running outside any container (in your case
> > > default resource group).
> > 
> > hmm, when you provide QoS for a set of apps, you will affect (the
> > resource availability of) other apps. I don't see any way around it. Any
> > ideas ?
> 
> When I say, existing behavior, I mean not getting impacted by some
> artificial limits that are imposed by container subsystem.  IOW, if a

That is what I understood and replied above.
> sysadmin is okay to have certain apps running outside of container then
> he is basically forgoing any QoS for any container on that system.

Not at all. If the container they are interested in is guaranteed, I do
not see how apps running outside a container would affect them.

<snip>
> > > > Not really. 
> > > >  - Each RG will have a guarantee and limit of each resource. 
> > > >  - default RG will have (system resource - sum of guarantees)
> > > >  - Every RG will be guaranteed some amount of resource to provide QoS
> > > >  - Every RG will be limited at "limit" to prevent DoS attacks.
> > > >  - Whoever doesn't care either of those set them to don't care values.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > For the cases that put this don't care, do you depend on existing
> > > reclaim algorithm (for memory) in kernel?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> So one container with these don't care condition(s) can turn the whole
> guarantee thing bad.  Because existing kernel reclaimer does not know
> about memory commitments to other containers.  Right?

No, the reclaimer would free up pages associated with the don't care RGs
( as the user don't care about the resource made available to them).

<snip>
> > > If the limits are set appropriately so that containers total memory
> > > consumption does not exceed the system memory then there shouldn't be
> > > any QoS issue (to whatever extent it is applicable for specific
> > > scenario).
> > 
> > Then you will not be work-conserving (IOW over-committing), which is one
> > of the main advantage of this type of feature.
> > 
> 
> If for the systems where QoS is important, not over-committing will be
> fine (at least to start with).

The problem is that you can't do it with just limit.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@...ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/