Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:49:09 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! |
| |
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:32:20AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Ok, let me see if I can convey what I had in mind better: > > uts_ns pid_ns ipc_ns > \ | / > --------------- > | nsproxy | > ---------------- > / | \ \ <-- 'nsproxy' pointer > T1 T2 T3 ...T1000 > | | | | <-- 'containers' pointer (4/8 KB for 1000 task) > ------------------- > | container_group | > ------------------ > / > ---------- > | container | > ---------- > | > ---------- > | cpu_limit | > ----------
[snip]
> We save on 4/8 KB (for 1000 tasks) by avoiding the 'containers' pointer > in each task_struct (just to get to the resource limit information).
Having the 'containers' pointer in each task-struct is great from a non-container res mgmt perspective. It lets you dynamically decide what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt.
It could be {T1, T5} tasks/threads of a process, or {T1, T3, T8, T10} tasks of a session (for limiting login time per session), or {T1, T2 ..T10, T18, T27} tasks of a user etc.
But from a vserver/container pov, this level flexibility (at a -task- level) of deciding the unit of res mgmt is IMHO not needed. The vserver/container/namespace (tsk->nsproxy->some_ns) to which a task belongs automatically defines that unit of res mgmt.
-- 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/
| |