linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] Change CPUACCT to default n

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: <CAKTCnznzpqUbMJEMwaewwjvMW1fG0J3=a8JxqKiHKNuffO7azg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:28:08 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, jbottomley@...allels.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] Change CPUACCT to default n

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 09:52 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:51:27 +0530
>> Balbir Singh<bsingharora@...il.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I don't think much discussion remains for cpuacct,
>>>> everyone's pretty unanimous in that they'd like to see it deprecated.
>>>> By splitting this up we can close out that quickly while we figure out
>>>> the
>>>> best way to resolve the above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd give it a thumbs up, if we can create sched groups and provide
>>> accounting without control - like we can for the memory cgroup today.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't it possible ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Kame
>>
> I must say I don't really understand what exactly you propose, and how it is
> different from what we have today.
>
> My take is that you are talking about a single cgroup in which you can have
> the functionality of both cpuacct and cpu, but surrounded by knobs that
> allows you to turn them off individually.
>
> Am I right?
>

No here is what I am asking for

I don't want CPU control, just accounting, so I create the following groups

                          a
                       /    \
                      V    V
                      b     c

Today, with the cpu controller, the moment I create a, b and c, they
get default shares and if I put tasks, their b/w is decided by the
shares, what if I don't want control, but I want to account for their
time only?

Balbir
--
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/