linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, v6 3/3] cgroups: introduce timer slack controller

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: <20110215001004.GA6644@shutemov.name>
Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:10:04 +0200
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v6 3/3] cgroups: introduce timer slack controller

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:00:55PM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:59:40AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:59:26AM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:06:27PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutsemov wrote:
> > > > From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > > +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &cgroup->children, sibling) {
> > > > +		child = cgroup_to_tslack_cgroup(cur);
> > > > +		if (type == TIMER_SLACK_MIN && val > child->min_slack_ns)
> > > > +			return -EBUSY;
> > > > +		if (type == TIMER_SLACK_MAX && val < child->max_slack_ns)
> > > > +			return -EBUSY;
> > > > +	}
> > > 
> > > This doesn't look right. Child cgroups should not constrain their
> > > parents. Instead you should allow the change and propagate the
> > > constraint to the children.
> > 
> > See discussion with Thomas.
> 
> <OK, shifting this topic to that thread>
> <snip>
> 
> > > > +static struct cftype files[] = {
> > > > +	{
> > > > +		.name = "set_slack_ns",
> > > > +		.write_u64 = tslack_write_set_slack_ns,
> > > > +	},
> > > > +	{
> > > > +		.name = "min_slack_ns",
> > > > +		.private = TIMER_SLACK_MIN,
> > > > +		.read_u64 = tslack_read_range,
> > > > +		.write_u64 = tslack_write_range,
> > > > +	},
> > > > +	{
> > > > +		.name = "max_slack_ns",
> > > > +		.private = TIMER_SLACK_MAX,
> > > > +		.read_u64 = tslack_read_range,
> > > > +		.write_u64 = tslack_write_range,
> > > > +	},
> > > 
> > > I didn't get a reply on how a max_slack_ns is useful. It seems
> > > prudent to add as little interface as possible and only when
> > > we clearly see the utility of it.
> > 
> > For example, you can create two groups (excluding root cgroup):
> > 
> > default - timer slack range 50000-50000
> > relaxed - timer slack range 500000-unlimited.
> > 
> > Now you can drag tasks between these group without need to reset value on
> > relaxed -> default transition.
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstood my point.
> 
> Yes, I can see that a maximum allows you to do counter-productive/pointless
> little tricks like "setting" the timer slack when you move the task. I
> just don't get the point of it. Why is setting a maximum timer slack useful?
> If anything it seems like it would be quite counterproductive or pointless
> *at best* because limiting the amount of timer slack would not improve
> the wakeup situation -- it could easily make it worse. Are there
> *any* negative consequences to allowing timer slacks as large as
> userspace requests -- perhaps even up to ULLONG_MAX? If there are none then
> why should we bother providing userspace a knob to set and enforce such a
> limit?

Could you describe the interface how you see it?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/