[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!
    On 3/9/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> wrote:
    > 1. What is the fundamental unit over which resource-management is
    > applied? Individual tasks or individual containers?
    > /me thinks latter.


    > In which case, it makes sense to stick
    > resource control information in the container somewhere.

    Yes, that's what all my patches have been doing.

    > 2. Regarding space savings, if 100 tasks are in a container (I dont know
    > what is a typical number) -and- lets say that all tasks are to share
    > the same resource allocation (which seems to be natural), then having
    > a 'struct container_group *' pointer in each task_struct seems to be not
    > very efficient (simply because we dont need that task-level granularity of
    > managing resource allocation).

    I think you should re-read my patches.

    Previously, each task had N pointers, one for its container in each
    potential hierarchy. The container_group concept means that each task
    has 1 pointer, to a set of container pointers (one per hierarchy)
    shared by all tasks that have exactly the same set of containers (in
    the various different hierarchies).

    It doesn't give task-level granularity of resource management (unless
    you create a separate container for each task), it just gives a space

    > 3. This next leads me to think that 'tasks' file in each directory doesnt make
    > sense for containers. In fact it can lend itself to error situations (by
    > administrator/script mistake) when some tasks of a container are in one
    > resource class while others are in a different class.
    > Instead, from a containers pov, it may be usefull to write
    > a 'container id' (if such a thing exists) into the tasks file
    > which will move all the tasks of the container into
    > the new resource class. This is the same requirement we
    > discussed long back of moving all threads of a process into new
    > resource class.

    I think you need to give a more concrete example and use case of what
    you're trying to propose here. I don't really see what advantage
    you're getting.

    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: 2007-03-09 23:13    [W:0.023 / U:3.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site