On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
