Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> writes:Well the style of kernel preemption is generally an implementation detail that is not visible to user space. Bind all of the UP processes to a single cpu. Right. But in a container that look like a full system arguably this is doable. There are a few additional details that would be needed to ensure containers are isolated from each other that would be needed to ensure this is effective but those are fairly minor. When we get to the point where this is a real concern I believe the isolation will be sufficient that this it is a valid question to ask. If there is nothing visible to user space I don't care. But security modules are fundamentally about changing when -EPERM happens so are very visible to user space. Eric -
| Ingo Molnar | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #10919] [regression] display dimming is slow and laggy - Acer Travelmate 661lci |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
