| 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: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:09:35 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> To: "Max Krasnyansky" <maxk@...lcomm.com> Cc: "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: boot cgroup questions On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote: > It probably won't even affect your existing scripts since > they will be able to move tasks into another set just like they do now. My boot scripts look in /dev/cpuset/tasks to find processes to move into the system cpuset. So that would break them. > they will now have to unset it in the 'boot' set as well. That can break existing userspace, so I presume PaulJ isn't in favour of this change. > Otherwise since the > 'boot' set will be non-exclusive (cpus and mems) it should not really affect > anything. Apart from other cpusets that *are* mem_exclusive or cpu_exclusive. > So what's your concern with unconditional 'boot' cgroup/cpuset ? The exclusivity problem, as above. Which subsystems are you going to include in this boot hierarchy? Userspace is going to have to be aware of the fact that there's a cpusets hierarchy which might have to be dismantled if it wants to set up something different. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists