linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple 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: <1330083196.11248.24.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:33:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 16:38 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering
> > > in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how
> > > does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of
> > > % of resources. 
> > 
> > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %.
> > Simple enough.
> 
> But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got
> 100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy
> might look as follows.
> 
>                                 root
>                                 / | \
>                                T1 T2 g1
> 
> T1, T2 are tasks and g1 is the group needing 25% of root's resources. Now
> number of tasks running in parallel to g1 will determine its effective %
> and tasks come and go. So the only way to do this would be that move T1
> and T2 in a child group under root and make sure new tasks don't show up
> in root. 

Which is exactly that the scheduler stuff does.. so tough luck for the
sysad who can't grasp it.

> Otherwise creating a group under root does not ensure that you get minimum
> % of resource. It just makes sure that you can't get more than 25% of
> % resources when things are tight. 

You never said anything about minimum resource guarantees in the initial
problem statement.
--
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/