On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 21:46 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:16 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y, cpu shares are > > > allocated according to uid. Shares are specifiable under > > > /sys/kernel/uids/<uid>/ > > > > > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_NS=y, clone(2) with the > > > CLONE_NEWUSER flag creates a new user namespace, and the newly > > > cloned task will belong to uid 0 in the new user namespace. > > > > We seem to be adding more and more stuff for USER_SCHED, is anybody > > actually using that cruft? > > > > How far along with cgroups are we to fully simulate that behaviour? > > > > I think if we have a capable cgroup based replacement for USER_SCHED we > > should axe it from the kernel, would save lots of code... > > I didn't realize that was the plan. Using PAM to move users > around cgroups? Right, thing is, distro's will all want cgroup enabled, since that's the latest fad :-), so this user sched thing will only be for people who build their own kernels -- but I suspect most of those simply disable all this group scheduling. > If so, then yeah that would simplify quite a bit > of code. Won't catch all setuid()s of course Right, so if we could somehow get a setuid notification hooked into cgroups,.. not sure that would be worth the trouble though. > - I don't know who uses USER_SCHED and if that would matter. Right, me neither... I would just love to be able to cut all that code out :-) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers