From: Rik van Riel (riel_at_conectiva.com.br)
Date: Mon 22 Oct 2001 - 17:24:11 BST
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jacques Gelinas wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:27:37 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote
> > However, the system call numbers your patch uses (222 and 223)
> > are already taken by TUX and LSM. I think it would be better
> > to ask Linus for one or two system calls to be reserved for
> > your project.
>
> Yes I was aware of that. I started in 2.4.9 and then I saw the
> problem in 2.4.10. I tought it was a little soon to reserve the
> syscall number as this project is still young. Maybe it does not
> matter and Linus will grant those entries.
The project is useful _now_, it would be really nice if
it could get some syscall numbers reserved ...
> > Other than that, I think I'll try it. If there are any major
> > TODO items left, let me know and maybe I can implement some.
> The other flag impact the schedular. The priority of a process
> in a security context is controlled by the activity of all
> processes in the same security context. This produced some sort
> of fairness between the vservers. The first flag (lock) takes
> its importance here.
> So we could have a "per security context" ulimit.
> What do you think ? I believe you have much experience on this
> side of the kernel.
I'm in. I'm willing and able to implement per-vserver
scheduling fairness within not too much time, the other
issues will take a bit longer, but I'm willing to help
with them or, as time allows, implement them.
Count me in.
regards,
Rik
-- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)