linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork"

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: <4EB2EA93.2050206@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:25:07 -0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork"

On 11/03/2011 05:20 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 2011/11/03 20:03, Alan Cox<alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>  wrote:
>> Sure - I'm just not seeing that a whole separate cgroup for it is
>> appropriate or a good plan. Anyone doing real resource management needs
>> the rest of the stuff anyway.
>
> Right.  When I saw Frederic's controller today, my first thought was
> that one could move the fork limit code over into that controller.  If
> we reach a consensus that this would be a good idea, and would have
> chances to get merged, I could probably take some time to refactor my
> code.
>
> Max
I'd advise you to take a step back and think if this is really needed. 
As Alan pointed out, the really expensive resource here is already being
constrained by Frederic's controller.

But ultimately, you're the only one that knows about your real 
requirements.
--
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/