| 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: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:19:43 -0800 From: Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>, Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>, Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> Subject: RFC: default group_isolation to 1, remove option Hi Vivek, I'd like to propose removing the group_isolation setting and changing the default to 1. Do we know if anyone is using group_isolation=0 to get easy group separation between sequential readers and random readers? Allowing group_isolation complicates implementing per-cgroup request descriptor pools when a queue is moved to the root group. Specifically, if we have pools per-cgroup, we would be forced to use request descriptors from the pool for the "original" cgroup, while the requests are actually being serviced by the root cgroup. That might be acceptable, but I figured this would be a good opportunity to revisit keeping queues within their original groups. I know this discussion has come up before. I'm curious if we have a good reason to keep it around right now. I'd be happy to do some investigation to help make my case. Thanks, Justin -- 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