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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <50471FEE.8060408@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:48:30 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <davej@...hat.com>, <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	<pjt@...gle.com>, <lennart@...ttering.net>, <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

On 09/05/2012 01:45 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:31:56PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> > > I simply don't want to have to do two (or more) hierarchy walks for
>>> > > accounting on every schedule event, all that pointer chasing is stupidly
>>> > > expensive.
>> > 
>> > You wouldn't have to do more than one hierarchy walks for that. What
>> > Tejun seems to want, is the ability to not have a particular controller
>> > at some point in the tree. But if they exist, they are always together.
> Nope, as I wrote in the other reply, 

Would you mind, then, stopping for a moment and telling us what it is,
then, that you envision?
--
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/