[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem
Paul Menage wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Balbir Singh <> wrote:
>> I tried something similar, I added an activated field, which is set
>> to true when the ->create() callback is invoked. That did not help
>> either, the machine still panic'ed.
> I think that marking it active when create() is called may be too soon.
> Is this with my unchanged cpuacct subsystem, or with the version that
> you've extended to track load over defined periods? I don't see it
> when I test under VMware (with two processors in the VM), but I
> suspect that's not going to be quite as parallel as a real SMP system.

This is with the unchanged cpuacct subsystem. Ok, so the container
system needs to mark active internally then.

>> I see the need for it, but I wonder if we should start with that
>> right away. I understand that people might want to group cpusets
>> differently from their grouping of let's say the cpu resource
>> manager. I would still prefer to start with one hierarchy and then
>> move to multiple hierarchies. I am concerned that adding complexity
>> upfront might turn off people from using the infrastructure.
> That's what I had originally and people objected to the lack of flexibility :-)
> The presence or absence of multiple hierarchies is pretty much exposed
> to userspace, and presenting the right interface to userspace is a
> fairly important thing to get right from the start.

I understand that the features are exported to userspace. But from
the userspace POV only the mount options change - right?

> Paul


Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-12 10:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean