From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933388AbXCIVwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:52:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933403AbXCIVwV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:52:21 -0500 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([213.145.232.33]:42733 "EHLO MAIL.13thfloor.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933404AbXCIVwU (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:52:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 22:52:18 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Paul Menage , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! Message-ID: <20070309215218.GA17592@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri , "Eric W. Biederman" , Paul Menage , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <6599ad830703071320ib687019h34d2e66c4abc3794@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830703071518y715ecdb2y33752a6e25b5ecdb@mail.gmail.com> <45EF5A62.8000103@vilain.net> <6599ad830703071642n69bbd801n6114fa6f9e60a168@mail.gmail.com> <45EF5E71.7090101@vilain.net> <6599ad830703071658q60466dd8hd18a1eab9bc17535@mail.gmail.com> <20070309005357.GC4506@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <20070309181908.GC21661@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070309181908.GC21661@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:49:08PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:57AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: >>> The real trick is that I believe these groupings are designed to >>> be something you can setup on login and then not be able to switch >>> out of. Which means we can't use sessions and process groups as the >>> grouping entities as those have different semantics. >> >> precisely, once you are inside a resource container, you >> must not have the ability to modify its limits, and to >> some degree, you should not know about the actual available >> resources, but only about the artificial limits the emphasis here is on 'from inside' which basically boils down to the following: if you create a 'resource container' to limit the usage of a set of resources for the processes belonging to this container, it would be kind of defeating the purpose, if you'd allow the processes to manipulate their limits, no? > From non-container workload management perspective, we do desire > dynamic manipulation of limits associated with a group and also the > ability to move tasks across resource-classes/groups. the above doesn't mean that there aren't processes _outside_ the resource container which have the necessary capabilities to manipulate the container in any way (changing limits dynamically, moving tasks in and out of the container, etc ...) best, Herbert > -- > Regards, > vatsa > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers