[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
    On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <> wrote:
    > We had this discussion more than 18 months back and concluded that it is
    > not the right thing to do. Here is the link to the thread:

    Even if the resource control portions aren't totally compatible,
    having two separate process container abstractions in the kernel is
    sub-optimal, both in terms of efficiency and userspace management. How
    about splitting out the container portions of cpuset from the actual
    resource control, so that CKRM/RG can hang off of it too? Creation of
    a cpuset or a resource group would be driven by creation of a
    container; at fork time, a task inherits its parent's container, and
    hence its cpuset and/or resource groups.

    At its most crude, this could be something like:

    struct container {
    struct cpuset cs;
    struct resource_group rg;

    but at least it would be sharing some of the abstractions.

    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: 2006-09-20 21:29    [W:0.022 / U:22.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site