linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1, v7] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control

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: <4D58A01E.9000203@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:23:10 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	container cgroup <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, Cedric Le Goater <clg@...t.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1, v7] cgroup/freezer: add per freezer duty ratio control

On 2/13/2011 4:44 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:29:07 -0800
> Matt Helsley<matthltc@...ibm.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:10:44AM -0800, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Jacob Pan<jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Freezer subsystem is used to manage batch jobs which can start
>>> stop at the same time. However, sometime it is desirable to let
>>> the kernel manage the freezer state automatically with a given
>>> duty ratio.
>>> For example, if we want to reduce the time that backgroup apps
>>> are allowed to run we can put them into a freezer subsystem and
>>> set the kernel to turn them THAWED/FROZEN at given duty ratio.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces two file nodes under cgroup
>>> freezer.duty_ratio_pct and freezer.period_sec
>> Again: I don't think this is the right approach in the long term.
>> It would be better not to add this interface and instead enable the
>> cpu cgroup subsystem for non-rt tasks using a similar duty ratio
>> concept..
>>
>> Nevertheless, I've added some feedback on the code for you here :).
>>
> AFAIK, there was a work for bandwidth control in CFS.
>
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-10/msg04335.html
>
> I tested this and worked fine. This schduler approach seems better for
> my purpose to limit bandwidth of apprications rather than freezer.

for our purpose, it's not about bandwidth.
it's about making sure the class of apps don't run for a long period 
(30-second range) of time.

--
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/