linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

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:	Wed, 5 Sep 2012 02:11:40 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	pjt@...gle.com, lennart@...ttering.net, kay.sievers@...y.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

Hello, Peter.

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> *confused* I always thought that was exactly what you meant with unified
> hierarchy.

No, I never counted out differing granularity.

> Doing all this runtime is just going to make the mess even bigger,
> because now we have to deal with even more stupid cases.
> 
> So either we go and try to contain this mess as proposed by Glauber or
> we go delete controllers.. I've had it with this crap.

If cpuacct can really go away, that's great, but I don't think the
problem at hand is unsolvable, so let's not jump it.  cpuacct and cpu
aren't the onlfy problem cases after all.  We need to solve it for
other controllers too.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/