| 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: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:29:32 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu> To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org> cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.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 Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > So if we're going to have different groupings for different > resources what's the use of "container" grouping all "controllers" > together? I see this situation like each task_struct carries > pointers to kmemsize controller, pivate pages controller, > physical pages controller, CPU time controller, disk bandwidth > controller, etc. Right? Or did I miss something? My understanding is that the only addition to the task_struct is a pointer to the struct container it belongs to. Then, the various controllers can register the control files through the fs-based container interface and all the manipulation can be done at that level. Having each task_struct containing pointers to individual resource nodes was never proposed. David - 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