linux-kernel - Re: [patch 04/15] sched: validate CFS quota hierarchies

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: <1305646010.2466.5889.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2011 17:26:50 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/15] sched: validate CFS quota hierarchies

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 05:32 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 02:28 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> > > This behavior may be disabled (allowing child bandwidth to exceed parent) via
> > > kernel.sched_cfs_bandwidth_consistent=0
> >
> > why? this needs very good justification.
> 
> I think it was lost in other discussion before, but I think there are
> two useful use-cases for it:
> 
> Posting (condensed) relevant snippet:

Such stuff should really live in the changelog

> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Consider:
> 
> - I have some application that I want to limit to 3 cpus
> I have a 2 workers in that application, across a period I would like
> those workers to use a maximum of say 2.5 cpus each (suppose they
> serve some sort of co-processor request per user and we want to
> prevent a single user eating our entire limit and starving out
> everything else).
> 
> The goal in this case is not preventing increasing availability within a
> given limit, while not destroying the (relatively) work-conserving aspect of
> its performance in general.
> 
> (...)
> 
> - There's also the case of managing an abusive user, use cases such
> as the above means that users can usefully be given write permission
> to their relevant sub-hierarchy.
> 
> If the system size changes, or a user becomes newly abusive then being
> able to set non-conformant constraint avoids the adversarial problem of having
> to find and bring all of their set (possibly maliciously large) limits
> within the global limit.
> -----------------------------------------------------------


But what about those where they want both behaviours on the same machine
but for different sub-trees?

Also, without the constraints, what does the hierarchy mean?
--
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/