linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem

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: <45A74634.4050600@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:56:28 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xemul@...ru, dev@...ru, containers@...ts.osdl.org, pj@....com,
	mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	serue@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container
 subsystem

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> I tried something similar, I added an activated field, which is set
>> to true when the ->create() callback is invoked. That did not help
>> either, the machine still panic'ed.
> 
> I think that marking it active when create() is called may be too soon.
> 
> Is this with my unchanged cpuacct subsystem, or with the version that
> you've extended to track load over defined periods? I don't see it
> when I test under VMware (with two processors in the VM), but I
> suspect that's not going to be quite as parallel as a real SMP system.

This is with the unchanged cpuacct subsystem. Ok, so the container
system needs to mark active internally then.

> 
>> I see the need for it, but I wonder if we should start with that
>> right away. I understand that people might want to group cpusets
>> differently from their grouping of let's say the cpu resource
>> manager. I would still prefer to start with one hierarchy and then
>> move to multiple hierarchies. I am concerned that adding complexity
>> upfront might turn off people from using the infrastructure.
> 
> That's what I had originally and people objected to the lack of flexibility :-)
> 
> The presence or absence of multiple hierarchies is pretty much exposed
> to userspace, and presenting the right interface to userspace is a
> fairly important thing to get right from the start.
> 

I understand that the features are exported to userspace. But from
the userspace POV only the mount options change - right?


> Paul
> 

-- 

	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/