linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: add bandwidth management for sched

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: <1338294716.26856.55.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 14:31:56 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
	michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
	tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
	luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
	insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com,
	jkacur@...hat.com, harald.gustafsson@...csson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: add bandwidth management for sched_dl.

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 14:18 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > The thing is, keeping it separate makes for an impossible configuration
> > scenario. Esp. once we enable !root usage. The proposed 5% is very
> > limiting and regular users won't have sufficient privilege to change it.
> >
> 
> Ok, now I understand your point better, and I agree that 5% is hardly
> usable for !root users. However, I also think this is probably more a
> system admin problem. I mean, a sys admin that wants his users to play
> with -deadline scheduling should have thought how to properly set up his
> system, and the fact that something must be configured by hand to give
> users a usable system is generally not a so bad idea. 

Yes, but lets not make the life of the unsuspecting admin harder than we
absolutely have to.

Furthermore we should strive to make DL as useful as possible
out-of-the-box.

One way to do this is to have rt and dl bandwidth constraints
independent and put a 3rd combined limit in place. But what is the
benefit of that over a single combined limit?
--
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/