| 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, 26 Jun 2008 15:59:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: righi.andrea@...il.com Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, menage@...gle.com, chlunde@...g.uio.no, axboe@...nel.dk, matt@...ehost.com, roberto@...it.it, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] i/o bandwidth controller infrastructure On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:36:46 +0200 Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote: > > Does all this code treat /dev/sda1 as a separate device from /dev/sda2? > > If so, that would be broken. > > Yes, all the partitions are treated as separate devices with > (potentially) different limiting rules, but I don't understand why it > would be broken... dev_t has both minor and major numbers, so it would > be possible to select single partitions as well. Well it's functionally broken, isn't it? A physical disk has a fixed IO bandwidth and when the administrator wants to partition that bandwidth amongst control groups he will need to consider the entire device when doing so? I mean, the whole point of this feature and of control groups as a whole is isolation. But /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 are very much _not_ isolated. Whereas /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are (to a large degree) isolated. -- 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