linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-uid/gid I/O throttling (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling)

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: <13594.1200483031@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:30:31 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Andrea Righi <righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-uid/gid I/O throttling (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling)

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said:

> Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater
> detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a
> control group filesystem available for grouping tasks and providing a
> file system based interface for control and accounting?

And here I thought "There's more than one way to do it" was the Perl slogan. :)

An equally valid question would be: "Why are we carrying around a control
group filesystem when we have configfs?"  (Honestly, I didn't know we *were*
carrying around such a filesystem - and quite likely Andrea Righi didn't
either...)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped