linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management

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]

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/