linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback 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]

Date:	Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:53:08 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, menage@...gle.com, dfults@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:47 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
> David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is the revised cpuset writeback throttling patchset
> 
> I'm all confused about why this is a cpuset thing rather than a cgroups
> thing.  What are the relationships here?
> 
> I mean, writeback throttling _should_ operate upon a control group
> (more specifically: a memcg), yes?  I guess you're assuming a 1:1
> relationship here?

I think the main reason is that we have per-node vmstats so the cpuset
extention is relatively easy. Whereas we do not currently maintain
vmstats on a cgroup level - although I imagine that could be remedied.
--
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/