linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management

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: <4548545B.4070701@openvz.org>
Date:	Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:01:31 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
CC:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, dev@...nvz.org,
	sekharan@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[snip]

>> 2. Having configfs as the only interface doesn't alow
>>    people having resource controll facility w/o configfs.
>>    Resource controller must not depend on any "feature".
> 
> One flexibility configfs (and any fs-based interface) offers is, as Matt
> had pointed out sometime back, the ability to delage management of a
> sub-tree to a particular user (without requiring root permission).
> 
> For ex:
> 
> 			/
> 			|
> 		 -----------------
> 		|		  |
> 	       vatsa (70%)	linux (20%)
> 		|
> 	 ----------------------------------
> 	|	         | 	          |
>       browser (10%)   compile (50%)    editor (10%)
> 
> In this, group 'vatsa' has been alloted 70% share of cpu. Also user
> 'vatsa' has been given permissions to manage this share as he wants. If
> the cpu controller supports hierarchy, user 'vatsa' can create further
> sub-groups (browser, compile ..etc) -without- requiring root access.

I can do the same using bcctl tool and sudo :)

> Also it is convenient to manipulate resource hierarchy/parameters thr a
> shell-script if it is fs-based.
> 
>> 3. Configfs may be easily implemented later as an additional
>>    interface. I propose the following solution:
> 
> Ideally we should have one interface - either syscall or configfs - and
> not both.

Agree.

> Assuming your requirement of auto-deleting objects in configfs can be
> met thr' something similar to cpuset's notify_on_release, what other
> killer problem do you think configfs will pose?
> 
> 
>>> 	- Should we have different groupings for different resources?
>> This breaks the idea of groups isolation.
> 
> Sorry dont get you here. Are you saying we should support different
> grouping for different controllers?

Not me, but other people in this thread.
-
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/