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 09:33:48 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	Li Zefan <>
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Kay Sievers <>,
	Lennart Poettering <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

Hello, Li.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:22:26PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > The following is a "best practices" document on using cgroups.
> > 
> >
> > 
> > To me, it seems to demonstrate the rather ugly situation that the
> > current cgroup is providing.  Everyone should tip-toe around cgroup
> > hierarchies and nobody has full knowledge or control over them.
> > e.g. base system management (e.g. systemd) can't use freezer or task
> > counter as someone else might want to use it for different hierarchy
> > layout.
> > 
> This issue still exists if we allow a single hierarchy only, right?
> Different cgroup users/applications have to struggle not to step
> on each other's toe.

Oh sure, having single hierarchy doesn't solve that problem but makes
it clear that there's single representation that kernel understands
and deals with.  I think the problem now is that kernel tries to
multiplex multiple users.  Unfortunately, it does that half-way and
badly and I think the nature of the problem doesn't really allow
proper muxed interface at kernel layer.  So, I'm suggesting to let go
of the broken pretense and just have a single unified interfce and let
userland deal with resource allocation policies.


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