Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

["Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>]

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/