linux-kernel - Re: per-thread rusage

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 May 2007 16:17:22 -0700
From:	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wli@...omorphy.com
Subject: Re: per-thread rusage

At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> I just so happen to think we should implement a variety of CPU resource
>> limits beyond what we now do, so this, too, interests me.

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:04:58AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Agreed - and make them all 64bit while doing the cleanup. One thing
> several Unixen have we don't for 32bi boxes is a proper set of 64bit
> resource handling for memory/file etc.
> We could also start using the CPU facilities to enforce some of
> the really interesting real time process ones (like main memory
> bandwidth) that at the moment we have no control over and can lead to
> very unfair behaviour.

That would be very useful, though I'm unsure of how broad a variety of
architectures implement performance counters useful for such. Simple
caps on %cpu would be a good start in my view.


-- wli
-
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/