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: <450E8113.30602@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:50:51 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	sekharan@...ibm.com, Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	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
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added	user
 memory)

Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> This approach has the following disadvantages
>>  1. Lets consider initialization - When we create 'n' groups
>> initially, we need
>>     to spend O(n^2) time to assign guarantees.
> 
> 1. Not guarantees - limits. If you do not need guarantees - assign
>    overcommited limits. Most of OpenVZ users do so and nobody claims.
> 2. If you start n groups at once then limits are calculated in O(n)
>    time, not O(n^2).

Yes.. if you start them at once, but if they are incrementally
added and started it is O(n^2)

> 
>>  2. Every time a limit or a guarantee changes, we need to recalculate
>> guarantees
>>     and ensure that the change will not break any guarantees
> 
> The same.
> 
>>  3. The same thing as stated above, when a resource group is created
>> or deleted
>>
>> This can lead to some instability; a change in one group propagates to
>> all other groups.
> 
> Let me cite a part of your answer on my letter from 11.09.2006:
> "...
>   xemul> I have a node with 1Gb of ram and 10 containers with 100Mb
>   xemul> guarantee each. I want to start one more.
>   xemul> What shall I do not to break guarantees?
> 
>  Don't start the new container or change the guarantees of the
>  existing ones to accommodate this one ... It would be perfectly
>  ok to have a container that does not care about guarantees to
>  set their guarantee to 0 and set their limit to the desired value
> ..."
> 
> The same for the limiting - either do not start new container, or
> recalculate limits to meet new requirements. You may not take care of
> guarantees as weel and create an overcommited configuration.
> 
> And one more thing. We've asked it many times and I ask it again -
> please, show us the other way for providing guarantee rather than
> limiting or reserving.

There are some other options, I am sure Chandra will probably have
more.

1. Reclaim resources from other containers. This can be done well for
    user-pages, if we ensure that each container does not mlock more
    than its guaranteed share of memory.
2. Provide best effort guarantees for non-reclaimable memory
3. oom-kill a container or a task within a resource group that has
    exceeded its guarantee and some other container is unable to meet its
    guarantee

-- 

	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
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/