linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] automatic tuning applied to some kernel components

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: <m1mz3poeda.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:18:57 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] automatic tuning applied to some kernel components

Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net> writes:

>
> 2) why autotuning:
> There are at least 3 cases where it can be useful
> . for workloads that are known to need a big amount of a given resource type
> (say shared memories), but we don't know what the maximum amount needed will be
> . to solve the case of multiple applications running on a single system, and
> that need the same tunable to be adjusted to feet their needs
> . to make a system correctly react to eventual peak loads for a given resource
> usage, i.e. make it tune up *and down* as needed.

>
> In all these cases, the akt framework will enable the kernel to adapt to
> increasing / decreasing resource consumption:
> 1) avoid allocating "a priori" a big amount of memory that will be used only in
> extreme cases. This is the effect of doing an "echo <huge_value>
>> /proc/sys/kernel/shmmni"
>
> 2) the system will come back to the default values as soon as the peak load is
> over.

At least the ipc ones are supposed to be DOS limits not behavior
modifiers.  I do admit from looking at the code that there are some
consequences of increasing things like shmmni.  However I think we
would be better off with  better data structures and implementations
that remove these consequences than this autotuning of
denial-of-service limits.

i.e. I think you are treating the symptom not the problem.

Does this make sense?

Eric

-
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/