linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] sched/fair: cpu time reserves for cgroups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 14:26:45 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] sched/fair: cpu time reserves for cgroups

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:22:22PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:

> >You forgot to explain why I should care about this.
>
> As I told this works as low-limit or high-limit which allow to
> control cpu time distribution without hard limits and throttling.

That's what it does; I get that. However nothing tells me why I should
care about it. IOW, its a solution without a problem, and I tend to
ignore those -- saves a lot of time on my end.

> Present quota/hard limit has well known problems when it throttle task
> inside kernel where it holds mutexes. Also it's too strict and doesn't
> allow utilization of unused cpu time.

See; now you're starting to make sense. You cannot have a patch if you
don't have a problem. And this series didn't have a problem to solve.

As for the latter; that's a feature for many people I'm told.