[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
    On 2/12/07, Sam Vilain <> wrote:
    > Ask yourself this - what do you need the container structure for so
    > badly, that virtualising the individual resources does not provide for?

    Primarily, that otherwise every module that wants to affect/monitor
    behaviour of a group of associated processes has to implement its own
    process grouping abstraction.

    As an example, the CPU accounting patch that in included in my patch
    set as an illustration of a simple resource monitoring module is just
    250 lines, almost entirely in one file; if it also had to handle
    associating tasks together into groups and presenting a filesystem
    interface to the user it would be far larger and would have a much
    bigger footprint on the kernel.

    From the point of view of the virtual server containers, the advantage
    is that you're integrated with a standard filesystem interface for
    determining group membership. It does become simpler to combine
    virtual servers and resource controllers, although I grant you that
    you could juggle that from userspace without the additional kernel

    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: 2007-02-13 01:47    [W:14.254 / U:0.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site