linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system

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: <45240D20.3080202@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:36:00 -0700
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
To:	sekharan@...ibm.com
CC:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, pj@....com, akpm@...l.org,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, jlan@....com,
	Joel.Becker@...cle.com, Simon.Derr@...l.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system

>>It would certainly be possible to have finer-grained locking. But the
>>cpuset code seems pretty happy with coarse-grained locking (only one
> 
> 
> cpuset may be happy today. But, It will not be happy when there are tens
> of other container subsystems use the same locks to protect their own
> data structures. Using such coarse locking will certainly affect the
> scalability.

All of this (and the rest of the snipped email with suggested
improvements) makes pretty good sense. But would it not be better
to do this in stages?

1) Split the code out from cpusets
2) Move to configfs
3) Work on locking scalability, etc ...

Else it'd seem that we'll never get anywhere, and it'll all be
impossible to review anyway. Incremental improvement would seem to
be a much easier way to fix this stuff, to me.

M.
-
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/