linux-kernel - Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)

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: <1184153440.20032.14.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:30:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 04:10 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Srivatsa wrote:
> > > So Ingo was proposing we use cpuset as that user interface to manage
> > > task-groups. This will be only for 2.6.23.
> > 
> > Good explanation - thanks.
> > 
> > In short, the proposal was to use the task partition defined by cpusets
> > to define CFS task-groups, until the real process containers are
> > available.
> > 
> > Or, I see in the next message, Ingo responding favorably to your
> > alternative, using task uid's to partition the tasks into CFS
> > task-groups.
> > 
> > Yeah, Ingo's preference for using uid's (or gid's ??) sounds right to
> > me - a sustainable API.
> > 
> > Wouldn't want to be adding a cpuset API for a single 2.6.N release.
> > 
> > .... gid's -- why not?
> 
> 
> Or process or process groups, or all of the above :-)
> 
> One thing to think on though, we cannot have per process,uid,gid,pgrp
> scheduling for one release only. So we'd have to manage interaction with
> process containers. It might be that a simple weight multiplication
> scheme is good enough:
> 
>   weight = uid_weight * pgrp_weight * container_weight
> 
> Of course, if we'd only have a single level group scheduler (as was
> proposed IIRC) it'd have to create intersection sets (as there might be
> non trivial overlaps) based on these various weights and schedule these
> resulting sets instead of the initial groupings.

Lets illustrate with some ASCII art:

so we have this dual level weight grouping (uid, container)

uid:          a a a a a b b b b b c c c c c
container:    A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B

set:          1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 

resulting in schedule sets 1,2,3,4

so that (for instance) weight_2 = weight_b * weight_A

-
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/