| 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: <20070501231722.GV26598@holomorphy.com> Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:17:22 -0700 From: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wli@...omorphy.com Subject: Re: per-thread rusage At some point in the past, I wrote: >> I just so happen to think we should implement a variety of CPU resource >> limits beyond what we now do, so this, too, interests me. On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:04:58AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Agreed - and make them all 64bit while doing the cleanup. One thing > several Unixen have we don't for 32bi boxes is a proper set of 64bit > resource handling for memory/file etc. > We could also start using the CPU facilities to enforce some of > the really interesting real time process ones (like main memory > bandwidth) that at the moment we have no control over and can lead to > very unfair behaviour. That would be very useful, though I'm unsure of how broad a variety of architectures implement performance counters useful for such. Simple caps on %cpu would be a good start in my view. -- wli - 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