linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS

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, 28 May 2007 18:55:52 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Peter Williams" <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc:	vatsa@...ibm.com, "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	wli@...omorphy.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ibm.com>, efault@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tingy@...umass.edu,
	"Kirill Korotaev" <dev@...ru>, kernel@...ivas.org,
	tong.n.li@...el.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Guillaume Chazarain" <guichaz@...oo.fr>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS

On 5/28/07, Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au> wrote:
>
> In any case, there's no point having cpu affinity if it's going to be
> ignored.  Maybe you could have two levels of affinity: 1. if set by a
> root it must be obeyed; and 2. if set by an ordinary user it can be
> overridden if the best interests of the system dictate.  BUT I think
> that would be a bad idea.

Something like that already exists (at least for controlling the
bounding set of allowed cpus) via cpusets.

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/