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  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:	Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:02:11 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <>
To:	Paul Menage <>
	Dhaval Giani <>,
	Balbir Singh <>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <>,,
	Linux Containers <>,
	Herbert Poetzl <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bharata B
> Rao<> wrote:
>> - Hard limits can be used to provide guarantees.
> This claim (and the subsequent long thread it generated on how limits
> can provide guarantees) confused me a bit.
> Why do we need limits to provide guarantees when we can already
> provide guarantees via shares?
> Suppose 10 cgroups each want 10% of the machine's CPU. We can just
> give each cgroup an equal share, and they're guaranteed 10% if they
> try to use it; if they don't use it, other cgroups can get access to
> the idle cycles.
> Suppose cgroup A wants a guarantee of 50% and two others, B and C,
> want guarantees of 15% each; give A 50 shares and B and C 15 shares
> each. In this case, if they all run flat out they'll get 62%/19%/19%,
> which is within their SLA.
> That's not to say that hard limits can't be useful in their own right
> - e.g. for providing reproducible loadtesting conditions by
> controlling how much CPU a service can use during the load test. But I
> don't see why using them to implement guarantees is either necessary
> or desirable.
> (Unless I'm missing some crucial point ...)

How many shares does a cgroup with a 0% guarantee get?

Ideally, the scheduler would hand out cpu time according to weight and 
demand, then clamp over-demand by a cgroup's limit and boost the share 
to meet guarantees.

I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists