linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:57:22 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	npiggin@...e.de, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	menage@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:24 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Chandra wrote:
> > There are two (competing) memory controllers in the kernel. But, distro
> > can turn only one ON. 
> 
> Huh - time for me to play the dummy again ...
> 
> My (fog shrouded) vision of the future has:
>  1) mempolicy - provides fine grained memory placement for task on self
>  2) cpuset - provides system wide cpu and memory placement for unrelated tasks
>  3) some form of resource groups - measures and limits proportion of various
>     resources used, including cpu cycles, memory pages and network bandwidth,
>     by collections of tasks.k
> 
> Both (2) and (3) need to group tasks in flexible ways distinct from the
> existing task groupings supported by the kernel.
> 
> I thought that Paul M suggested (2) and (3) use common underlying
> grouping or 'bucket' technology - the infrastructure that separates
> tasks into buckets and can be used to associate various resource
> metrics and limits with each bucket.
> 
> I can't quite figure out whether you have in mind above:
>  * a conflict between two competing memory controllers for (3),

Yes.
>  * or a conflict between cpusets and one memory controller for (3).

No.
> 
> And either way, I don't see what that has to do with the underling
> bucket technology - how we group tasks generically.

True. I clarified it in the reply to Paul M.
> 
> Guess I am missing something ...
> 
-- 

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