linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50471379.3060603@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:55:21 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <davej@...hat.com>, <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, <pjt@...gle.com>,
	<lennart@...ttering.net>, <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

On 09/05/2012 12:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Glauber.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:35:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> As long as cpuacct and cpu are separate, I think it makes sense to
>>> assume that they at least could be at different granularity.  
>>
>> If they are comounted, and more: forceably comounted, I don't see how to
>> call them separate. At the very best, they are this way for
>> compatibility purposes only, to lay a path that would allow us to get
>> rid of the separation eventually.
> 
> I think this is where we disagree.  I didn't mean that all controllers
> should be using exactly the same hierarchy when I was talking about
> unified hierarchy.  I do think it's useful and maybe even essential to
> allow differing levels of granularity.  cpu and cpuacct could be a
> valid example for this.  Likely blkcg and memcg too.
> 
> So, I think it's desirable for all controllers to be able to handle
> hierarchies the same way and to have the ability to tag something as
> belonging to certain group in the hierarchy for all controllers but I
> don't think it's desirable or feasible to require all of them to
> follow exactly the same grouping at all levels.
> 

By "different levels of granularity" do you mean having just a subset of
them turned on at a particular place?

If yes, having them guaranteed to be comounted is still perceived by me
as a good first step. A natural following would be to turn them on/off
on a per-group basis.




--
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/