linux-kernel - Re: Revert for cgroups CPU accounting subsystem patch

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]

Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:05:24 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Revert for cgroups CPU accounting subsystem patch

On Nov 12, 2007 10:00 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>         On second thoughts, this may be a usefull controller of its own.
> Say I just want to "monitor" usage (for accounting purpose) of a group of
> tasks, but don't want to control their cpu consumption, then cpuacct
> controller would come in handy.
>

That's plausible, but having two separate ways of tracking and
reporting the CPU usage of a cgroup seems wrong.

How bad would it be in your suggested case if you just give each
cgroup the same weight? So there would be fair scheduling between
cgroups, which seems as reasonable as any other choice in the event
that the CPU is contended.

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/