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: <1158196948.20211.90.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:22:28 -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 Wed, 2006-09-13 at 15:20 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> 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
> > 


These are good results.  But I still think the cost will increase over a
period of time as more logic gets added.  Any data on microbenchmarks
like lmbench.
 
> <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.
> 

...meaning hooks in the generic kernel reclaim algorithm.  Getting
something like that in mainline will be at best tricky.


-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/