linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

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, 16 Nov 2010 13:08:49 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> Well, if I make behaviour like this default in systemd, then this means
>> there won't be user setup for this. Because the distros shipping systemd
>> will get this as default behaviour.
>
> And within the desktop where would you put this - in the window manager
> on the basis of top level windows or in the app startup ?

Btw, I suspect either of these are reasonable. In fact, I don't think
it would be at all wrong to have the desktop launcher have an option
to "launch in a group" (although I think it would need to be named
better than that). Right now, when you create desktop launchers under
at least gnome, it allows you to specify a "type" for the application
("Application" or "Application in Terminal"), and maybe there could be
a "CPU-bound application" choice that would set it in a CPU group of
its own. Or whatever.

So I do _not_ believe that the autogroup feature should necessarily
mean that you cannot do other grouping decisions too. I just do think
that the whole notion of "it got started from a tty" is actually a
very useful thing for legacy applications, and one where it's just
simpler to do it in the kernel than build up any extra infrastructure
for it.

So it's not necessarily at all an "either-or" thing.

                           Linus
--
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/