lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> 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 {
#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
struct cpuset cs;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS
struct resource_group rg;
#endif
};
but at least it would be sharing some of the abstractions.

Paul
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-20 21:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans