linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/33] Documentation, x86: Documentation for Intel resource allocation user interface

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:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:27:14 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
cc:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/33] Documentation, x86: Documentation for Intel
 resource allocation user interface

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:36:57AM +0000, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> > One way to implement this is we can extend the current interface to accept
> > a resctrl file system mount parameter to switch b/w "procs" and "tasks" during
> > mount time. So the file sytem has either "procs" or "tasks" during run time. I don't think it's right to have both of them at the same time in the file system.
> 
> A mount option doesn't make sense, which just creates more trouble. What's
> wrong to have both of 'procs' and 'tasks' at the same time, like cgroup? I
> think it's more natural to support both. As for the content of 'procs' and
> 'tasks', we could follow how cgroup handle them.

Right. There is nothing wrong with having both, but the very first step is
to get the basic infrastructure merged. Adding 'procs' is a straight
forward add on which can be implemented on top of the primary patch
set. There is no design change required to support it later.

Thanks,

	tglx