| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4BEABDF8.40206@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:40:56 +0200 From: Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> CC: Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>, James Kosin <jkosin@...comgrp.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, lennart@...ttering.net, tglx@...utronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets On 05/12/2010 04:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 16:13 +0200, Dhaval Giani wrote: >> What you are saying is that an application >> programmer who wants to just use memory cgroups should also care about >> cpusets and just about countless other cgroup subsystems that can >> exist. > > That's exactly what he says if he mounts them together. No, the programmer does not mount anything. Programmer writes application which wants to create a subgroup. System admin is the one who decides what is mounted how. And the programmer (=me) needs a way how to reliably create a subgroup, without knowing details about all controllers. E.g. 'blkio' controller is quite new one, old applications do now know anything about it, yet according to your idea, the application *must* provide sane defaults to it. Jan -- 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