| 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, 11 Jul 2007 18:00:48 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: containers@...ts.osdl.org, menage@...gle.com, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:09:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > (btw., if this goes into 2.6.23 then we cannot possibly turn it off in 2.6.24, > > The fact that we will have two interface for group scheduler in 2.6.24 > is what worries me a bit (one user-id based and other container based). I know breaking user-interface is a bad thing across releases. But in this particular case, it's probably ok (since fair-group scheduling is a brand new feature in Linux)? If we have that option of breaking API between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 for fair-group scheduler, then we are in a much more flexible position. For 2.6.23, I can send a user-id based interface for fair-group scheduler (with some /proc interface to tune group nice value). For 2.6.24, this user-id interface will be removed and we will instead switch to container based interface. Fair-user scheduling will continue to work, its just that users will have to use a daemon (sources sent in previous mail) to enable it on top of container-based interface. Hmm..? -- 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