linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20070310031909.GA11330@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:49:09 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sam@...ain.net, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru, pj@....com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:32:20AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Ok, let me see if I can convey what I had in mind better:
> 
> 	    uts_ns pid_ns ipc_ns
> 		\    |    /
> 		---------------
> 	       | nsproxy  	|
> 	        ----------------
>                  /  |   \    \ <-- 'nsproxy' pointer
> 		T1  T2  T3 ...T1000
> 		|   |   |      | <-- 'containers' pointer (4/8 KB for 1000 task)
> 	       -------------------
> 	      | container_group	  |
> 	       ------------------	
> 		/
> 	     ----------
> 	    | container |
> 	     ----------
> 		|
> 	     ----------
> 	    | cpu_limit |
> 	     ---------- 

[snip]

> We save on 4/8 KB (for 1000 tasks) by avoiding the 'containers' pointer
> in each task_struct (just to get to the resource limit information).

Having the 'containers' pointer in each task-struct is great from a
non-container res mgmt perspective. It lets you dynamically decide what
is the fundamental unit of res mgmt. 

It could be {T1, T5} tasks/threads of a process, or {T1, T3, T8, T10} tasks of 
a session (for limiting login time per session), or {T1, T2 ..T10, T18, T27} 
tasks of a user etc.

But from a vserver/container pov, this level flexibility (at a -task- level) of 
deciding the unit of res mgmt is IMHO not needed. The
vserver/container/namespace (tsk->nsproxy->some_ns) to which a task 
belongs automatically defines that unit of res mgmt.


-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/