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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:41:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Vivek Goyal <>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <>, Li Zefan <>,,,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Kay Sievers <>,
	Lennart Poettering <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,, Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:57 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering
> in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how
> does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of
> % of resources. 

If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %.
Simple enough.

If its bandwidth based then simply don't allow a child to consume more
bandwidth than its parent, also simple.

If your layman isn't capable of grokking that, he should stay the f*ck
away from it.

I'm really thinking that if we stick with the full hierarchical thing we
should mandate all controllers be fully hierarchical. And yes that
sucks, but so be it.

The scheduler thing tries to be completely hierarchical and yes it will
run into the ground if you push it hard enough simply because we're
hitting the limits of fixed point arithmetic, fractions can only go so
far, so the deeper you nest the crappier things get -- not that any
userspace cares about this.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists