linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

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: <1158780923.6536.110.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:35:23 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	npiggin@...e.de, CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pj@....com,
	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 12:25 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > We had this discussion more than 18 months back and concluded that it is
> > not the right thing to do. Here is the link to the thread:
> 
> Even if the resource control portions aren't totally compatible,
> having two separate process container abstractions in the kernel is
> sub-optimal, both in terms of efficiency and userspace management. How
> about splitting out the container portions of cpuset from the actual
> resource control, so that CKRM/RG can hang off of it too? Creation of
> a cpuset or a resource group would be driven by creation of a
> container; at fork time, a task inherits its parent's container, and
> hence its cpuset and/or resource groups.
> 
> At its most crude, this could be something like:
> 
> struct container {
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
>   struct cpuset cs;
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS
>   struct resource_group rg;
> #endif
> };

Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both.

It will also prevent the possibility of having resource groups within a
cpuset.

> 
> but at least it would be sharing some of the abstractions.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@...ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/