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: <1158886536.6536.230.camel@linuxchandra>
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:55:36 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	npiggin@...e.de, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:13 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/21/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > Think about what will be available to customer through a distro.
> >
> > There are two (competing) memory controllers in the kernel. But, distro
> > can turn only one ON. Which in turn mean
> 
> Why's that? I don't see why cpuset memory nodemasks can't coexist
> with, say, the RG memory controller. They're attempting to solve
> different problems, and I can see situations where you might want to
> use both at once.

Yes, they are two different solutions and I agree that there is no
competition.

Where I see the competition is w.r.t memory controllers from different
resource management solutions (RG, UBC, Rohit's container etc.,). That
is what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

> 
> >
> > So, IMHO, it is better to sort out the differences before we get things
> > in mainline kernel.
> 
> Agreed, if we can come up with a definition of e.g. memory controller
> that everyone agrees is suitable for their needs. You're assuming
> that's so a priori, I'm not yet convinced.
> 
> And I'm not trying to get another memory controller into the kernel,
> I'm just trying to get a standard process aggregation into the kernel
> (or rather, take the one that's already in the kernel and make it
> possible to hook other controller frameworks into it), so that the
> various memory controllers can become less intrusive patches in their
> own right.

I wasn't talking about the competition issue in this context.

Let me clearly state it for the record: I support your effort in
providing an independent process aggregation :)
 
> 
> 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/