| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1346840453.2461.6.camel@laptop> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:20:53 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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 Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:31 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > 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. Right, but the accounting is very much tied to the control structures, I suppose we could change that, but my jet-leg addled brain isn't seeing anything particularly nice atm. But I don't really see the point though, this kind of interface would only ever work for the non-controlling and controlling controller combination (confused yet ;-), and I don't think we have many of those. I would really rather see a simplification of the entire cgroup interface space as opposed to making it more complex. And adding this subtree 'feature' only makes it more complex. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists