linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session 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]

Message-ID: <1291203202.4023.5.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:33:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 06:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> IMHO, cgroups should have been 'nice' from the start, but the folks who
> wrote it did what they thought best.  I like nice a lot better than
> shares, so I used nice. 

Agreed, but by the time I realized that the shares thing was already in
the wild. I did (probably still do) have a patch that adds a nice file
to the cgroup file.

Anyway, I think the whole proc/nice interface for autogroups is already
a tad too far. If people want control they can use cgroups, but I really
don't care enough to argue much about it.



--
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/