Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:56:28 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem |
| |
Paul Menage wrote: > On 1/11/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote: >> I tried something similar, I added an activated field, which is set >> to true when the ->create() callback is invoked. That did not help >> either, the machine still panic'ed. > > I think that marking it active when create() is called may be too soon. > > Is this with my unchanged cpuacct subsystem, or with the version that > you've extended to track load over defined periods? I don't see it > when I test under VMware (with two processors in the VM), but I > suspect that's not going to be quite as parallel as a real SMP system.
This is with the unchanged cpuacct subsystem. Ok, so the container system needs to mark active internally then.
> >> I see the need for it, but I wonder if we should start with that >> right away. I understand that people might want to group cpusets >> differently from their grouping of let's say the cpu resource >> manager. I would still prefer to start with one hierarchy and then >> move to multiple hierarchies. I am concerned that adding complexity >> upfront might turn off people from using the infrastructure. > > That's what I had originally and people objected to the lack of flexibility :-) > > The presence or absence of multiple hierarchies is pretty much exposed > to userspace, and presenting the right interface to userspace is a > fairly important thing to get right from the start. >
I understand that the features are exported to userspace. But from the userspace POV only the mount options change - right?
> Paul >
--
Balbir Singh, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs - 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/
| |