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 16:14:23 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <>
	Dhaval Giani <>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <>,,
	Linux Containers <>,
	Herbert Poetzl <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

Balbir Singh wrote:
>> That's the limit part.  I'd like to be able to specify limits and  
>> guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that  
>> works when you advance the bandwidth period.
> Yes, this feature needs to be configurable. But your use case for both
> limits and guarantees is interesting. We spoke to Peter and he was
> convinced only of the guarantee use case. Could you please help
> elaborate your use case, so that we can incorporate it into RFC v2 we
> send out. Peter is opposed to having hard limits and is convinced that
> they are not generally useful, so far I seen you and Paul say it is
> useful, any arguments you have or any +1 from you will help us. Peter
> I am not back stabbing you :)

I am selling virtual private servers.  A 10% cpu share costs $x/month, 
and I guarantee you'll get that 10%, or your money back.  On the other 
hand, I want to limit cpu usage to that 10% (maybe a little more) so 
people don't buy 10% shares and use 100% on my underutilized servers.  
If they want 100%, let them pay for 100%.

>> I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something  
>> derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they  
>> can be used to provide SLAs).
> Even limits are useful for SLA's since your b/w available changes
> quite drastically as we add or remove groups. There are other use
> cases for limits as well

SLAs are specified in terms of guarantees on a service, not on limits on 
others.  If we could use limits to provide guarantees, that would be 
fine, but it doesn't quite work out.

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