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: <1158186046.18927.7.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:20:46 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	rohitseth@...gle.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 Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:25 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 18:10 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > 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.
> > > 
> 
> Think of a single kernel from a vendor that has container support built
> in.

Ok. Understood.

Here are results of some of the benchmarks we have run in the past
(April 2005) with CKRM which showed no/negligible performance impact in
that scenario.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111325064322305&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111385973226267&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111291409731929&w=2
> 
<snip>

> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Because the kernel (outside the container subsystem) doesn't know of

The core resource subsystem (VM subsystem for memory) would know about
the guarantees and don't cares, and it would handle it appropriately.

> these guarantees...unless you modify the page allocator to have another
> variant of overcommit memory.
> 

<snip>
> 
> > 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).
> > 
> 
> And how will the kernel reclaimer know which RGs are don't care?

By looking into the beancounter associated with the container/RG


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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/