| 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: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:14:10 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> To: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com> Cc: sekharan@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, balbir@...ibm.com, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, devel@...nvz.org, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:10:31PM -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > It seems that a single notion of limit should suffice, and that limit > should more be treated as something beyond which that resource > consumption in the container will be throttled/not_allowed. The big question is : are containers/RG allowed to use *upto* their limit always? In other words, will you typically setup limits such that sum of all limits = max resource capacity? If it is setup like that, then what you are considering as limit is actually guar no? If it wont be setup like that, then I dont see how one can provide QoS. -- Regards, vatsa - 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