| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:40:43 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> To: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote: > Paul Menage wrote: > > > The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register > > any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it > > shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits. > > If the framework was able to handle arbitrary control parameters, that > would certainly be interesting. > > Presumably there would be some way for the controllers to be called from > the framework to validate those parameters? The approach that I had in mind was that each controller could register what ever control files it wanted, which would appear in the filesystem directories for each container; reads and writes on those files would invoke handlers in the controller. The framework wouldn't care about the semantics of those control files. See the containers patch that I posted last month for some examples of this. Paul - 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