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: <1291215841.3882.64.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:04:01 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	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 09:55 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:

> So IIUC, if a task is in root cgroup, then it would not necessarily be driven
> by cpu.shares of root cgroup (as task could be in its own autogroup). But
> if I move the task into a non-root cgroup, then it will for sure be
> subjected to rules imposed by non-root cgroup cpu.shares. That's not too
> bad.

I think the normal case would be either one or the other being in use at
any given time, but yes, if both are active, that's how it'd work.

	-Mike

--
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/