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    [W:0.020 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site