linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management

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]

Message-Id: <20060803231604.f7920683.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:16:04 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, vatsa@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
	balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu
 controller

pj wrote:
> I haven't read it yet, but I will likely agree that
> this is an abuse of cpusets.

This likely just drove Srivatsa up a wall (sorry), as my comments
in the earlier thread he referenced:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/26/58

enthusiastically supported adding a cpu controller interface to cpusets.

We need to think through what are the relations between CKRM
controllers, containers and cpusets.  But I don't think that
people will naturally want to manage CKRM controllers via cpusets.
That sounds odd to me now.  My earlier enthusiasm for it seems
wrong to me now.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/