> Consensus/Debated Points
> ------------------------
>
> Consensus:
>
> - Provide resource control over a group of tasks
> - Support movement of task from one resource group to another
> - Dont support heirarchy for now
> - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource
> type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly
> met thr limits.
>
> Debated:
> - syscall vs configfs interface
OK. Let's stop at configfs interface to move...
> - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets
> - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource
> groups/containers under a cpuset?
> - Should we have different groupings for different resources?
I propose to discuss this question as this is the most important
now from my point of view.
I believe this can be done, but can't imagine how to use this...
> - Support movement of all threads of a process from one group
> to another atomically?
I propose such a solution: if a user asks to move /proc/<pid>
then move the whole task with threads.
If user asks to move /proc/<pid>/task/<tid> then move just
a single thread.
What do you think?
-
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]
