linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET for-4.11] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread mode

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1486963730.5912.89.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:28:50 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
        "lvenanci@...hat.com" <lvenanci@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET for-4.11] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread mode

On Sun, 2017-02-12 at 13:16 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:07:16AM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> > > The only case that this does not support vs ".threads" would be some
> > > hybrid where we co-mingle threads from different processes (with the
> > > processes belonging to the same node in the hierarchy).  I'm not aware
> > > of any usage that looks like this.
> > 
> > If I understand you right; this is a fairly common thing with RT where
> > we would stuff all the !rt threads of the various processes in a 'misc'
> > bucket.
> > 
> > Similarly, it happens that we stuff the various rt threads of processes
> > in a specific (shared) 'rt' bucket.
> > 
> > So I would certainly not like to exclude that setup.
> > 
> 
> Unless you're using rt groups I'm not sure this one really changes.  
> Whether the "misc" threads exist at the parent level or one below
> should not matter.

(with exclusive cpusets, a mask can exist at one and only one location)