linux-kernel - Re: RFC: documentation of the autogroup feature [v2]

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: <20161125224816.GC3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2016 23:48:16 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: documentation of the autogroup feature [v2]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

> Okay -- you're really quite the ASCII artist. And somehow,
> I think you needed to compose the mail in LaTeX. But thanks
> for the detail. It's helpful, for me at least.

Hehe, its been a while since I did LaTeX, so I'd probably make a mess of
it :-) Glad my ramblings made sense.

> > Note that this property, where the weight of the server entity is
> > independent from its child entities is a desired feature. Without that
> > it would be impossible to control the relative weights of groups, and
> > that is the sole parameter of the WFQ model.
> > 
> > It is also why Linus so likes autogroups, each session competes equally
> > amongst one another.
> 
> I get it. But, the behavior changes for the process nice value are
> undocumented, and they should be documented. I understand
> what the behavior change was. But not yet when.

Well, its all undocumented -- I suppose you're about to go fix that :-)

But think of it differently, think of the group as a container, then the
behaviour inside the container is exactly as expected.