linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090608043705.GC16211@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:07:06 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 09:05:23PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On further thinking, this is not as simple as that. In above example of
> > 5 tasks on 4 CPUs, we could cap each task at a hard limit of 80%
> > (4 CPUs/5 tasks), which is still not sufficient to ensure that each
> > task gets the perfect fairness of 80%! Not just that, hard-limit
> > for a group (on each CPU) will have to be adjusted based on its task
> > distribution. For ex: a group that has a hard-limit of 25% on a 4-cpu
> > system and that has a single task, is entitled to claim a whole CPU. So
> > the per-cpu hard-limit for the group should be 100% on whatever CPU the
> > task is running. This adjustment of per-cpu hard-limit should happen
> > whenever the task distribution of the group across CPUs change - which
> > in theory would require you to monitor every task exit/migration
> > event and readjust limits, making it very complex and high-overhead.
> >
> 
> We already do that for shares right? I mean instead of 25% hard limit,
> if the group had 25% of the shares the same thing would apply - no?

yes and no. we do rebalance shares based on task distribution, but not
upon every task fork/exit/wakeup/migration event. Its done once in a while,
frequent enough to give "decent" fairness!

> > Balbir,
> >        I dont think guarantee can be met easily thr' hard-limits in
> > case of CPU resource. Atleast its not as straightforward as in case of
> > memory!
> 
> OK, based on the discussion - leaving implementation issues out,
> speaking of whether it is possible to implement guarantees using
> shares? My answer would be
> 
> 1. Yes - but then the hard limits will prevent you and can cause idle
> times, some of those can be handled in the implementation. There might
> be other fairness and SMP concerns about the accuracy of the fairness,
> thank you for that data.
> 2. We'll update the RFC (second version) with the findings and send it
> out, so that the expectations are clearer
> 3. From what I've read and seen there seems to be no strong objection
> to hard limits, but some reservations (based on 1) about using them
> for guarantees and our RFC will reflect that.
> 
> Do you agree?

Well yes, guarantee is not a good argument for providing hard limits.
Pay-per-use kind of usage would be a better argument IMHO.

- vatsa
--
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/