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: <450A6A7A.8010102@sw.ru>
Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:55:22 +0400
From:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
CC:	sekharan@...ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
	Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	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>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added	user
 memory)

Chandra,

>>>>What if I have 40 containers each with 2% guarantee ? what do we do
>>>>then ? and many other different combinations (what I gave was not the
>>>>_only_ scenario).
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>
>>>Then you need to solve a set of 40 equations. This sounds weird, but
>>>don't afraid - sets like these are solved lightly.
>>>    
>>
>>extrapolate that to a varying # of permutations and real time changes in
>>the system workload. Won't it be complex ?
>>  
> 
> I have a C program that computes limits to obtain desired guarantees
> in a single 'for (i = 0; i < n; n++)' loop for any given set of guarantees.
> With all error handling, beautifull output, nice formatting etc it weights
> only 60 lines.
> 
>>Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if we have the guarantee support instead ?
the calculation above doesn't seem hard :)

>>Why you do not like guarantee ? :)

> I do not 'do not like guarantee'. I'm just sure that there are two ways
> for providing guarantee (for unreclaimable resorces):
> 1. reserving resource for group in advance
> 2. limit resource for others
> Reserving is worse as it is essentially limiting (you cut off 100Mb from
> 1Gb RAM thus limiting the other groups by 900Mb RAM), but this limiting
> is too strict - you _have_ to reserve less than RAM size. Limiting in
> run-time is more flexible (you may create an overcommited BC if you
> want to) and leads to the same result - guarantee.
I think this deserves putting on Wiki.
It is very good clear point.

Chanrda, do you propose some 3rd way (we are unaware of) of implementing guarantees?

Thanks,
Kirill
-
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/