[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/16] sched: add resource limits for -deadline tasks.
On 04/24/2012 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> From: Dario Faggioli<>
>> Add resource limits for non-root tasks in using the SCHED_DEADLINE
>> policy, very similarly to what already exists for RT policies.
>> In fact, this patch:
>> - adds the resource limit RLIMIT_DLDLINE, which is the minimum value
>> a user task can use as its own deadline;
>> - adds the resource limit RLIMIT_DLRTIME, which is the maximum value
>> a user task can use as it own runtime.
>> Notice that to exploit these, a modified version of the ulimit
>> utility and a modified resource.h header file are needed. They
>> both will be available on the website of the project.
>> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli<>
>> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli<>
> I'm not sure this is the right way to go.. those existing things aren't
> entirely as useful/sane as one might hope either.
> The DLDLINE minimum is ok I guess, the DLRTIME one doesn't really do
> anything, by spawning multiple tasks one can still saturate the cpu and
> thus we have no effective control for unpriv users.
> Ideally DLRTIME would be a utilization cap per user and tracked in
> user_struct such that we can enforce a max utilization per user.
> This also needs a global (and possibly per-cgroup) user limit too to cap
> the total utilization of all users (excluding root) so that multiple
> users cannot combine their efforts in order to bring down the machine.
> In light of these latter controls the per-user control might be
> considered optional, furthermore I don't particularly like the rlimit
> infrastructure but I guess its the best we have for per-user like things
> if indeed we want to go there.

Ok, but considering what you said regarding setscheduler security problems:

On 04/24/2012 11:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 09:21 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > Well, depends on how much effort will this turn to require. I personally
>> > would prefer to be able to come out with a new release ASAP. Just to
>> > continue the discussion with the most of the comments addressed and a
>> > more updated code (I also have a mainline version of the patchset
>> > quite ready).
> Right, one thing we can initially do is require root for using
> SCHED_DEADLINE and then when later work closes all the holes and we've
> added user bandwidth controls we can allow everybody in.

Are you suggesting to drop/postpone this to some later time?


- Juri

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-24 17:27    [W:0.091 / U:14.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site