Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:25:57 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! |
| |
Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com): > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > What's wrong with that? > > I had been asking around on "what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt > for vservers" and the answer I got (from Herbert) was "all tasks that are > in the same pid namespace". From what you are saying above, it seems to > be that there is no such "fundamental" unit. It can be a random mixture > of tasks (taken across vservers) whose resource consumption needs to be > controlled. Is that correct?
If I'm reading it right, yes.
If for vservers the fundamental unit of res mgmt is a vserver, that can surely be done at a higher level than in the kernel.
Actually, these could be tied just by doing
mount -t container -o ns,cpuset /containers
So now any task in /containers/vserver1 or any subdirectory thereof would have the same cpuset constraints as /containers. OTOH, you could mount them separately
mount -t container -o ns /nsproxy mount -t container -o cpuset /cpuset
and now you have the freedom to split tasks in the same vserver (under /nsproxy/vserver1) into different cpusets.
-serge
> > > echo "cid 2" > /dev/cpu/prof/tasks > > > > Adding that feature sounds fine, > > Ok yes ..that can be a optional feature. > > -- > Regards, > vatsa - 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/
| |