| 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: <6599ad830610301007n2c974199m407f3818dd77365a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:07:05 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> To: "Dave McCracken" <dmccr@...ibm.com> Cc: ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, dev@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@...ibm.com> wrote: > > Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should > design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for it > I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In addition to > the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the paradigm presented to > the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users options they will never > use. The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that requires a hierarchy. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists