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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:14:39 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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, Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 08:59 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Vivek.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:03:45AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > With root being treated specially, probably as just being a equal
> > > group as other groups, I'm not fully determined about that yet.
> > 
> > So what wrong with flattening the whole hierarchy and all groups being active
> > in the path? It is not worse then second option?
> > 
> >              root
> >        /   |  |  |  \
> >       G1  G2  G3 G31 G32
> 
> It is worse because while there isn't much need for orthogonal
> hierarchies, people often need to apply different limits at different
> levels of the hierarchy for different controllers.  ie. it often
> happens that the distinction between G31 and G32 matters for one
> controller but not for others.  The problem with flattening like you
> suggested above is that it isn't a hierarchy at all - membership isn't
> recursive.
> 
> Imposing limits at single level is an additional restriction and may
> cause some config complexity but it'll be at least explicit and can
> co-exist with full hierarchy in meaningful way.

Isn't there a simple fix for this?  Each controller can decide whether
to pay attention to its cgroup parent in calculating the resource limits
or counting usage.  If the controller elects not to pay attention to its
parents when counting resources and enforcing limits, it effectively
gives you a flat hierarchy from the point of view of the controller.

What actually happens depends on how the controller calculates the
limits: if it's a global fraction, then it's completely flat, if it's
just an absolute limit, then it wouldn't pay attention to the parent
anyway, if it's a proportion, then the controller has to decide how to
divide up the parent's allocation.

James


--
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/