linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:09:35 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	sam@...ain.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pj@....com, dev@...ru,
	xemul@...ru, containers@...ts.osdl.org, winget@...gle.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

On 3/9/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 1. What is the fundamental unit over which resource-management is
> applied? Individual tasks or individual containers?
>
>         /me thinks latter.

Yes

> In which case, it makes sense to stick
>         resource control information in the container somewhere.

Yes, that's what all my patches have been doing.

> 2. Regarding space savings, if 100 tasks are in a container (I dont know
>    what is a typical number) -and- lets say that all tasks are to share
>    the same resource allocation (which seems to be natural), then having
>    a 'struct container_group *' pointer in each task_struct seems to be not
>    very efficient (simply because we dont need that task-level granularity of
>    managing resource allocation).

I think you should re-read my patches.

Previously, each task had N pointers, one for its container in each
potential hierarchy. The container_group concept means that each task
has 1 pointer, to a set of container pointers (one per hierarchy)
shared by all tasks that have exactly the same set of containers (in
the various different hierarchies).

It doesn't give task-level granularity of resource management (unless
you create a separate container for each task), it just gives a space
saving.

>
> 3. This next leads me to think that 'tasks' file in each directory doesnt make
>    sense for containers. In fact it can lend itself to error situations (by
>    administrator/script mistake) when some tasks of a container are in one
>    resource class while others are in a different class.
>
>         Instead, from a containers pov, it may be usefull to write
>         a 'container id' (if such a thing exists) into the tasks file
>         which will move all the tasks of the container into
>         the new resource class. This is the same requirement we
>         discussed long back of moving all threads of a process into new
>         resource class.

I think you need to give a more concrete example and use case of what
you're trying to propose here. I don't really see what advantage
you're getting.

Paul
-
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/