linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add hierarchical accounting to cpu accounting controller

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: <20081027044319.GA4386@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:13:19 +0530
From:	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add hierarchical accounting to cpu accounting
	controller

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:17:03AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:38:52 -0700
> "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Bharata B Rao
> > <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>

Thanks Paul.

> > 
> > So in technical terms this patch looks fine now. There's still the
> > question of whether it's OK to change the existing API, since it's
> > been in the kernel in its currently (non-hierarchical) form for
> > several releases now.

Hmm... Can we consider this as an API change ? Currently cpuacct.usage
readers of a parent accounting group are missing the usage contributions
from its children groups. I would consider this patch as fixing the
above problem by correctly reflecting the cpu usage for every accounting
group.

> > 
> Hmm..how about having 2 params as "aggregated usage" and "private usage" ?
> 
>  cpuacct.usage.
>  cpuacct.all_subtree_usage.

Is there really a need to differentiate between aggregated and private
usage other than to maintain the current behaviour ?

Regards,
Bharata.
--
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/