From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965441AbXBLWra (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:47:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965439AbXBLWra (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:47:30 -0500 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:33282 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965441AbXBLWr1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:47:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:47:17 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Sam Vilain Cc: menage@google.com, akpm@osdl.org, pj@sgi.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, winget@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers Message-ID: <20070212224717.GB19604@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <45D0EC68.9090009@vilain.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45D0EC68.9090009@vilain.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Sam Vilain (sam@vilain.net): > menage@google.com wrote: > > Generic Process Containers > > -------------------------- > > > > There have recently been various proposals floating around for > > resource management/accounting and other task grouping subsystems in > > the kernel, including ResGroups, User BeanCounters, NSProxy > > containers, and others. These all need the basic abstraction of being > > able to group together multiple processes in an aggregate, in order to > > track/limit the resources permitted to those processes, or control > > other behaviour of the processes, and all implement this grouping in > > different ways. > > > > I know I'm a bit out of touch, but AIUI the NSProxy *is* the container. The nsproxy is an implementation detail, actually, and might go away at any time. But yes we had been talking for quite awhile about sets of namespaces as containers, so that a vserver would be a container, as would a lightweight checkpoint/restart job. > We decided a long time ago that a container was basically just a set of > namespaces, which includes all of the subsystems you mention. > > This would suggesting re-write this patchset, part 2 as a "CPUSet Well it's an unfortunate conflict, but I don't see where we have any standing to make Paul change his terminology :) Lately I've been talking about "Paul's containers", our "namespaces", and the "namespace container subsystem" in patch 7. > namespace", part 4 as a "CPU scheduling namespace", parts 5 and 6 as > "Resource Limits Namespace" (drop this "BeanCounter" brand), and of > course part 7 falls away. Part 7 does not fall away, it uses Paul's patchset to start to provide a management interface for namespaces. -serge