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: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:34:34 +0900 From: "MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@...il.com> To: "Dong-Jae Kang" <baramsori72@...il.com> Cc: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>, "Matthew Garrett" <mjg@...hat.com>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, corsetproject@...glegroups.com, "Vaidyanathan Srinivasan" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Question] power management related with cgroup based resource management Hi, Dong-Jae. > In some aspect, your opinion is right. > Existing controller(ex. disk IO controllers) can be run on new HW > devices(ex. SSD), existing block layer and so on. > > but, what I mean is that such controllers can support more performance > if the controllers are rewrited with reconsideration of the features > of new HW devices. in other words, what I mean can be optimization of > controllers for new devices > For example, > In case of SSD, current IO scheduler layer is needed ? although i can > not sure about it ^^ > or process sleep is needed after throwing the IO requests to storage ? > the role of page cache in SSD or NVRAM is less important than in > normal HDD and .... What you mention is already included in 2.6.28 merge window. I think we can use this feature on NVRAM, too. http://lwn.net/Articles/303270/ > I heard that many research centers in comanies and universities have > studied about smiliar research > of course, it can be OS itself, device drivers, block layer, file > systems and memory management > > Under this trend, > I just wonder whether the trend can be reflected to cgroup based > controllers or not. > and whether it is meaningful or not? > How do you think about this? > My opinion may be some humble ^^ I think it's not cgroup controller's role but each subsystem's one. As you can see above article, Many mainline guys try to improve performance in each subsystems. Do you have a scenario or idea how to use cgroup frame work to manage devices like NVRAM, SSD ?? > Thank you > -- > Best Regards, > Dong-Jae Kang > -- > 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/ > -- Kinds regards, MinChan Kim -- 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