linux-kernel - Re: boot cgroup questions

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: <20080414134203.ea5a7de7.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:42:03 -0500
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	menage@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: boot cgroup questions

Max K wrote:
> I agree in general. In this particular case additional grouping introduces 
> even more hierarchy. I seems to me that
> 	"irqN -> cpu1, cpu2, cpu3"
> is a very simple, straightforward relationship. Whereas
> 	"irqN -> groupX"
> 	"groupX -> cpu1"
> 	"groupX -> cpu2"
> 	"groupX -> cpu3"
> Is not that straightforward.

Clearly, yes, the first is simpler than the second.

The question is which is correct.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/