linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups

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: <47DDE187.70109@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:42:07 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>  I am yet to measure the performance overhead of the accounting checks. I'll try
>>  and get started on that today. I did not consider making it a separate system,
>>  because I suspect that anybody wanting memory control would also want address
>>  space control (for the advantages listed in the documentation).
> 
> I'm a counter-example to your suspicion :-)
> 
> Trying to control virtual address space is a complete nightmare in the
> presence of anything that uses large sparsely-populated mappings
> (mmaps of large files, or large sparse heaps such as the JVM uses.)
> 

Not really. Virtual limits are more gentle than an OOM kill that can occur if
the cgroup runs out of memory. Please also see
http://linux-vserver.org/Memory_Limits

> If we want to control the effect of swapping, the right way to do it
> is to control disk I/O, and ensure that the swapping is accounted to
> that. Or simply just not give apps much swap space.

Yes, a disk I/O and swap I/O controller are being developed (not by us, but
others in the community). How does one restrict swap space for a particular
application? I can think of RLIMIT_AS for a process and something similar to
what I've posted for cgroups. Not enabling swap is an option, but not very
practical IMHO.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/