linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

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: <20101119000720.GF6024@const.famille.thibault.fr>
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:07:20 +0100
From:	Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@...la.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>, david@...g.hm,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

Samuel Thibault, le Fri 19 Nov 2010 01:02:04 +0100, a écrit :
> Linus Torvalds, le Thu 18 Nov 2010 15:51:35 -0800, a écrit :
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Samuel Thibault
> > <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > What overhead? The implementation of cgroups is actually already
> > > hierarchical.
> > 
> > Well, at least the actual group creation overhead.
> > 
> > If it's a "only at setsid()", that's a fairly rare thing (although I
> > think somebody might want to run something like the AIM7 benchmark - I
> > have this memory of it doing lots of tty tests).
> > 
> > Or if it's only at "user launches new program from window manager",
> > that's rare too.
> > 
> > But if you do it per process group, now you're doing one for each
> > command invocation in a shell, for example.
> 
> Well, if it's from an interactive shell, it's not really a problem :)
> 
> But when it's from a script it can become one, yes. But are cgroups so
> expensive?
> 
> > If you're doing things per thread, you've already lost.
> 
> Not per thread, per process, i.e. put threads of the same process in the
> same cgroup. Again, I would have thought that creating a cgroup is very
> lightweight in front of a fork(). If not, maybe we are just looking for
> another, more lightweight container information that the scheduler would
> use [1], and keep more heavyweight containers for the non-automatic
> creation way.
> 
> > Also, remember the goal: it was never about some theoretical end
> > result. It's all about a simple heuristic that makes things work
> > better. Trying to do that "perfectly" totally and utterly misses the
> > whole point.
> 
> Sure.  Using sid should already be quite good, but including the uid
> information as well should be easily even better.

Also note that having a hierarchical process structure should permit to
make things globally more efficient: avoid putting e.g. your cpp, cc1,
and asm processes at three corners of your 4-socket NUMA machine :)

Samuel
--
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/