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: <4549B1CF.3000505@openvz.org>
Date:	Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:52:31 +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
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

>> I believe this can be done, but can't imagine how to use this...
> 
> As I mentioned in my earlier mail, I thought openvz folks did want this
> flexibility:
> 
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/18/98
> 
> Also:
> 
> 	http://lwn.net/Articles/94573/
> 
> But I am ok if we dont support this feature in the initial round of
> development.

Yes. Lets start with it - no separate groupings for a while.

BTW I think that hierarchy is a good (and easier to make than)
replacement for separate grouping. Say if I want two groups to
have separate CPU shares and common kmemsize this is the same as
if I want one group for kmemsize with two kids - one for X% of
CPU share and the other for Y%. And this (hierarchy) provides
more flexibility than "plain" although separate grouping.
Moreover configfs can provide a clean interface for it. E.g.
 $ mkdir /configfs/beancounters/0
 $ mkdir /configfs/beancounters/0/1
 $ mkdir /confgifs/beancounters/0/2
and each task_struct will have a single pointer - current
container - but not 10 - for each controller.

What do you think?

> Having grouping for different resources could be a hairy to deal
> with and could easily mess up applications (for ex: a process in a 80%

That's it... One more thing against separate grouping.

[snip]

> Isnt /proc/<pid> listed also in /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>?
> 
> For ex:
> 
> 	# ls /proc/2906/task
> 	2906  2907  2908  2909
> 
> 2906 is the main thread which created the remaining threads.
> 
> This would lead to an ambiguity when user does something like below:
> 
> 	echo 2906 > /some_res_file_system/some_new_group
> 
> Is he intending to move just the main thread, 2906, to the new group or
> all the threads? It could be either.
> 
> This needs some more thought ...

I agree with Paul Menage that having
/configfs/beancounters/<id>/tasks and /.../threads is perfect.
-
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/