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]

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/