linux-kernel - Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)

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]

Message-Id: <20070710222942.382fc9ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:29:42 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:25:16 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:53:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:34:38 -0700
> > "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Andrew, how about we merge enough of the container framework to
> > > support CFS? Bits we could leave out for now include container_clone()
> > > support and the nsproxy subsystem, fork/exit callback hooks, and
> > > possibly leave cpusets alone for now (which would also mean we could
> > > skip the automatic release-agent stuff). I'm in Tokyo for the Linux
> > > Foundation Japan symposium right now, but I should be able to get the
> > > new patchset to you for Friday afternoon.
> > 
> > mm..  Given that you propose leaving bits out for the 2.6.23 merge, and
> > that changes are still pending and that nothing will _use_ the framework in
> > 2.6.23 [...]
> 
> Andrew,
> 	The cpu group scheduler is ready and waiting for the container patches 
> in 2.6.23 :)
> 
> Here are some options with us:
> 
> 	a. (As Paul says) merge enough of container patches to enable
> 	   its use with cfs group scheduler (and possibly cpusets?)
> 
> 	b. Enable group scheduling bits in 2.6.23 using the user-id grouping 
> 	   mechanism (aka fair user scheduler). For 2.6.24, we could remove 
> 	   this interface and use Paul's container patches instead. Since this 
> 	   means change of API interface between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24, I don't 
> 	   prefer this option.
> 
> 	c. Enable group scheduling bits only in -mm for now (2.6.23-mmX), using 
> 	   Paul's container patches. I can send you a short patch that hooks up 
> 	   cfs group scheduler with Paul's container infrastructure.
> 
> If a. is not possible, I would prefer c.
> 
> Let me know your thoughts ..

I'm inclined to take the cautious route here - I don't think people will be
dying for the CFS thingy (which I didn't even know about?) in .23, and it's
rather a lot of infrastructure to add for a CPU scheduler configurator
gadget (what does it do, anyway?)

We have plenty of stuff for 2.6.23 already ;)

Is this liveable with??
-
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/