[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!
    On 3/7/07, Sam Vilain <> wrote:
    > Ok, they share this characteristic with namespaces: that they group
    > processes. So, they conceptually hang off task_struct. But we put them
    > on ns_proxy because we've got this vague notion that things might be
    > better that way.

    Remember that I'm not the one pushing to move them into ns_proxy.
    These patches are all Srivatsa's work. Despite that fact that they say
    "Signed-off-by: Paul Menage", I'd never seen them before they were
    posted to LKML, and I'm not sure that they're the right approach.
    (Although some form of unification might be good).

    > >> about this you still insist on calling this sub-system specific stuff
    > >> the "container",
    > >>
    > > Uh, no. I'm trying to call a *grouping* of processes a container.
    > >
    > Ok, so is this going to supplant the namespaces too?

    I don't know. It would be nice to have a single object hanging off the
    task struct that contains all the various grouping pointers. Having
    something that was flexible enough to handle all the required
    behaviours, or else allowing completely different behaviours for
    different subsets of that structure, could be the fiddly bit.

    See my expanded reply to Eric' earlier post for a possible way of
    unifying them, and simplifying the nsproxy and container.c code in the

    > - resource groups (I get a strange feeling of déjà vú there)

    Resource groups isn't a terrible name for them (although I'd be
    wondering whether the BeanCounters folks would object :-) ) but the
    intention is that they're more generic than purely for resource
    accounting. (E.g. see my other email where I suggested that things
    like task->mempolicy and task->user could potentially be treated in
    the same way)

    Task Group is a good name, except for the fact that it's too easily
    confused with process group.

    > And do we bother changing IPC namespaces or let that one slide?

    I think that "namespace" is a fine term for the IPC id
    virtualization/restriction that ipc_ns provides. (Unless I'm totally
    misunderstanding the concept).

    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: 2007-03-08 10:13    [W:0.022 / U:0.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site