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: <6599ad830609201734m1566876aya2605efaf0a5cb63@mail.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:34:52 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	sekharan@...ibm.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 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset
> (into a container data structure) is ok.

Can you suggest a realistic scenario in which it's not? Don't forget
that since the container abstraction is hierarchical, you don't have
to use both at the same level. So you could easily e.g. have a parent
container in which you bound to a set of memory/cpu nodes, but had no
rg limits, and several subcontainers where you configured nothing
special for cpuset parameters (so inherited the parent params) but
tweaked different rg parameters.

Paul
-
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/