linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/19] Increase resolution of load weights

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1305271187.17430.8.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2011 09:19:47 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephan Barwolf <stephan.baerwolf@...ilmenau.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/19] Increase resolution of load weights

On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 10:30 -0700, Nikhil Rao wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:29 -0700, Nikhil Rao wrote:
> >> > It's a cost/benefit analysis and for 32-bit systems the benefits seem to be
> >> > rather small, right?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, that's right. The benefits for 32-bit systems do seem to be limited.
> >
> > deep(er) hierarchies on 32 bits still require this, it would be good to
> > verify that the cgroup mess created by the insanity called libvirt will
> > indeed work as expected.
> >
> 
> I went through the libvirt docs and from what I understand, it creates
> a hierarchy which is about 3 levels deep and has as many leaf nodes as
> guest VMs.

That sounds about right with what I remember people telling me
earlier ;-)

> Taking this graphic from
> http://berrange.com/posts/2009/12/03/using-cgroups-with-libvirt-and-lxckvm-guests-in-fedora-12/
> 
> $ROOT
>  |
>  +-  libvirt    (all virtual machines/containers run by libvirtd)
>        |
>        +- lxc   (all LXC containers run by libvirtd)
>        |   |
>        |   +-  guest1    (LXC container called 'guest1')
>        |   +-  guest2    (LXC container called 'guest2')
>        |   +-  guest3    (LXC container called 'guest3')
>        |   +-  ...       (LXC container called ...)
>        |
>        +- qemu  (all QEMU/KVM containers run by libvirtd)
>            |
>            +-  guest1    (QENU machine called 'guest1')
>            +-  guest2    (QEMU machine called 'guest2')
>            +-  guest3    (QEMU machine called 'guest3')
>            +-  ...       (QEMU machine called ...)
> 
> Assuming the tg shares given to libvirt, lxc and qemu containers are
> the defaults, the load balancer should be able to deal with the
> current resolution on 32-bit. Back of the envelope calculations using
> that approach I mentioned earlier (i.e. log_b(1024/NR_CPU)) says you
> need > 64 VMs before you run out of resolution. I think that might be
> too much to expect from a 8-cpu 32-bit machine ;-)

Quite so, get a real machine etc.. ;-) But then, there's always some
weird people out there, but I think we can tell them to run a 64bit
kernel.
--
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/