On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 12:57 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]> 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.
What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset
(into a container data structure) is ok.
>
> Paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
