| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1158795569.7207.23.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:39:29 -0700 From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, devel@...nvz.org, npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > > How does the containers implementation under discussion behave if a > > > process is part of a container and the container is removed? > > It first removes all the tasks belonging to this container (which means > > resetting the container pointers in task_struct and then per page > > container pointer belonging to anonymous pages). It then clears the > > container pointers in the mapping structure and also in the pages > > belonging to these files. > > So the application continues to run unharmed? > It will hit a one time penalty of getting those pointers reset, but besides that it will continue to run fine. > Could we equip containers with restrictions on processors and nodes for > NUMA? > Yes. That is something we will have to do (I think part of CPU handler-TBD). -rohit - 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