lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/16] sched/core: uclamp: request CAP_SYS_ADMIN by default
On 14-Sep 13:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:40:53PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > 1) _I think_ we don't want to depend on capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) but
> > instead on capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)
> >
> > Does that make sense ?
>
> Neither of them really makes sense to me.
>
> The max clamp makes a task 'consume' less and you should always be able
> to reduce yourself.
>
> The min clamp doesn't avoid while(1); and is therefore also not a
> problem.
>
> So I think setting clamps on a task should not be subject to additional
> capabilities.
>
> Now, of course, there is a problem of clamp resources, which are
> limited. Consuming those _is_ a problem.

Right, that problem could be solved if we convince ourself that the
quantization approach proposed in:

[PATCH v4 15/16] sched/core: uclamp: add clamp group discretization support
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180828135324.21976-16-patrick.bellasi@arm.com/

could make sense and specifically, the other limitation it imposes
(i.e. the quantizaiton) is within reasonable rounding control errors/

> I think the problem here is that the two are conflated in the very same
> interface.
>
> Would it make sense to move the available clamp values out to some sysfs
> interface like thing and guard that with a capability, while keeping the
> task interface unprivilidged?

You mean something like:

$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/sched_uclamp_min_utils
0 10 20 ... 100

to notify users about the set of clamp values which are available ?

> Another thing that has me 'worried' about this interface is the direct
> tie to CPU capacity (not that I have a better suggestion). But it does
> raise the point of how userspace is going to discover the relevant
> values of the platform.

This point worries me too, and that's what I think is addressed in a
sane way in:

[PATCH v4 13/16] sched/core: uclamp: use percentage clamp values
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180828135324.21976-14-patrick.bellasi@arm.com/

IMHO percentages are a reasonably safe and generic API to expose to
user-space. Don't you think this should address your concern above ?

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 16:08    [W:0.133 / U:14.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site