| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:01:59 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu> Cc: dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:29:37PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > This would forces all tasks in container A to belong to the same mem/io ctlr > groups. What if that is not desired? How would we achieve something like > this: > > tasks (m) should belong to mem ctlr group D, > tasks (n, o) should belong to mem ctlr group E > tasks (m, n, o) should belong to i/o ctlr group G > > (this example breaks the required condition/assumption that a task belong to > exactly only one process container). > > Is this a unrealistic requirement? I suspect not and should give this > flexibilty, if we ever have to support task-grouping that is > unique to each resource. Fundamentally process grouping exists because > of various resource and not otherwise. In this article, http://lwn.net/Articles/94573/, Linus is quoted to want something close to the above example, I think. -- Regards, vatsa - 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