linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] cgroup: Remove cgroup v2 no internal process constraint

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:   Sat, 20 May 2017 04:10:07 +0200
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
        luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] cgroup: Remove cgroup v2 no internal
 process constraint

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 16:38 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Waiman.
> 
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:34:11AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The rationale behind the cgroup v2 no internal process constraint is
> > to avoid resouorce competition between internal processes and child
> > cgroups. However, not all controllers have problem with internal
> > process competiton. Enforcing this rule may lead to unnatural process
> > hierarchy and unneeded levels for those controllers.
> 
> This isn't necessarily something we can determine by looking at the
> current state of controllers.  It's true that some controllers - pid
> and perf - inherently only care about membership of each task but at
> the same time neither really suffers from the constraint either.  CPU
> which is the problematic one here...

(+ cpuacct + cpuset)