linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED

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:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:50:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com,
	p.faure@...tech.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	claudio@...dence.eu.com, michael@...rulasolutions.com,
	fchecconi@...il.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it,
	nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it, luca.abeni@...tn.it,
	dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
	insop.song@...il.com, liming.wang@...driver.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
	harald.gustafsson@...csson.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	bruce.ashfield@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v8

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > > [...] the only 'issue' I have is the cgroup abi muck. We clearly 
> > > > need a bit more discussion on what/how we want things there but 
> > > > there are no easy answers :/ So I'd say lets try this and see where 
> > > > we'll find ourselves.
> > > 
> > > I'd suggest we leave out the cgroup ABI muck from the first round of 
> > > upstream merge - do it in a second round, that will give it more 
> > > attention.
> > 
> > I'm afraid that'd give rise to some very weird situations for people 
> > using cgroups :/
> 
> Why? One solution would be to just not offer bandwidth management 
> initially - but use some sane default.
> 
> Yes, this doesn't offer "true" deadline scheduling yet, but would allow us 
> to move most of the code upstream, without any ABI changes initially 
> (other than adding the SCHED_DEADLINE policy and such).

I suppose we could keep the global sysctl thingies but indeed ignore all
the cgroup limits for now. That would allow some admission control but
leaves out the hairiest part.
--
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/