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  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]
Date:	Sat, 4 Jan 2014 17:50:58 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	"containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support

Hello,

On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 10:43:00PM +0000, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> Simply put, when we want to allocate an RMID for monitoring httpd
> traffic, we can create a new child in the subsystem hierarchy, and
> assign the httpd processes to it.  Then the RMID can be assigned to the
> subsystem, and each process inherits that RMID.  So instead of dealing
> with assigning an RMID to each and every process, we can leverage the
> existing cgroup mechanisms for grouping processes and their children to
> a group, and they inherit the RMID.

Here's one thing that I don't get, possibly because I'm not
understanding the processor feature too well.  Why does the processor
have to be aware of the grouping?  ie. why can't it be done
per-process and then aggregated?  Is there something inherent about
the monitored events which requires such peculiarity?  Or is it that
accessing the stats data is noticieably expensive to do per context
switch?

> Please let me know if this is a better explanation, and gives a better
> picture of why we decided to approach the implementation this way.  Also
> note that this feature, Cache QoS Monitoring, is the first in a series
> of Platform QoS Monitoring features that will be coming.  So this isn't
> a one-off feature, so however this first piece gets accepted, we want to
> make sure it's easy to expand and not impact userspace tools repeatedly
> (if possible).

In general, I'm quite strongly opposed against using cgroup as
arbitrary grouping mechanism for anything other than resource control,
especially given that we're moving away from multiple hierarchies.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists