Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction | From | Rohit Seth <> | Date | Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:07:58 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:38 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > cpusets provides cpu and memory NODES binding to tasks. And I think it > > works great for NUMA machines where you have different nodes with its > > own set of CPUs and memory. The number of those nodes on a commodity HW > > is still 1. And they can have 8-16 CPUs and in access of 100G of > > memory. You may start using fake nodes (untested territory) to > > See linux-mm. We just went through a series of tests and functionality > wise it worked just fine. >
I thought the fake NUMA support still does not work on x86_64 baseline kernel. Though Paul and Andrew have patches to make it work.
> > translate a single node machine into N different nodes. But am not sure > > if this number of nodes can change dynamically on the running machine or > > a reboot is required to change the number of nodes. > > This is commonly discussed under the subject of memory hotplug. >
So now we depend on getting memory hot-plug to work for faking up these nodes ...for the memory that is already present in the system. It just does not sound logical.
> > Though when you want to have in access of 100 containers then the cpuset > > function starts popping up on the oprofile chart very aggressively. And > > this is the cost that shouldn't have to be paid (particularly) for a > > single node machine. > > Yes this is a new way of using cpusets but it works and we could fix the > scalability issues rather than adding new subsystems. >
I think when you have 100's of zones then cost of allocating a page will include checking cpuset validation and different zone list traversals and checks...unless there is major surgery.
> > And what happens when you want to have cpuset with memory that needs to > > be even further fine grained than each node. > > New node? >
Am not clear how is this possible. Could you or Paul please explain.
> > Containers also provide a mechanism to move files to containers. Any > > further references to this file come from the same container rather than > > the container which is bringing in a new page. > > Hmmmm... Thats is interesting. > > > In future there will be more handlers like CPU and disk that can be > > easily embeded into this container infrastructure. > > I think we should have one container mechanism instead of multiple. Maybe > merge the two? The cpuset functionality is well established and working > right. >
I agree that we will need one container subsystem in the long run. Something that can easily adapt to different configurations.
-rohit
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |