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

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

On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > };
>
> Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both.

Not necessarily - you could have both compiled in, and each would only
worry about the resource management that they cared about - e.g. you
could use the memory node isolation portion of cpusets (in conjunction
with fake numa nodes/zones) for memory containment, but give every
cpuset access to all CPUs and control CPU usage via the resource
groups CPU controller.

The generic code would take care of details like container
creation/destruction (with appropriate callbacks into cpuset and/or
res_group code, tracking task membership of containers, etc.

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/