linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] cgroups: implement moving a threadgroup's threads atomically with cgroup.procs

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:	Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:12:51 -0800
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] cgroups: implement moving a threadgroup's threads
 atomically with cgroup.procs

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:35:42 -0500
> Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 07:09:19AM -0500, Ben Blum wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 03:22:26AM -0500, Ben Blum wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:46:04AM -0400, Ben Blum wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:56:49PM -0400, Ben Blum wrote:
>> > > > > This patch series is a revision of http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/25/11 .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This patch series implements a write function for the 'cgroup.procs'
>> > > > > per-cgroup file, which enables atomic movement of multithreaded
>> > > > > applications between cgroups. Writing the thread-ID of any thread in a
>> > > > > threadgroup to a cgroup's procs file causes all threads in the group to
>> > > > > be moved to that cgroup safely with respect to threads forking/exiting.
>> > > > > (Possible usage scenario: If running a multithreaded build system that
>> > > > > sucks up system resources, this lets you restrict it all at once into a
>> > > > > new cgroup to keep it under control.)
>> > > > >
>
> The above six month old text is the best (and almost the only)
> explanation of the rationale for the entire patch series.  Is
> it still correct and complete?
>

It's still correct, but I'm sure we could come up with a more detailed
justification if necessary.

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/