From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750719AbXCLR0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:26:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750757AbXCLR0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:26:06 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:35309 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750719AbXCLR0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:26:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:25:57 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Menage , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@vilain.net, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, ebiederm@xmission.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: <20070312172557.GD12893@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070307180055.GC17151@in.ibm.com> <20070307205846.GB7010@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830703071320ib687019h34d2e66c4abc3794@mail.gmail.com> <20070309163430.GN6504@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703091409s3d233829gb8f0afbfd2883b15@mail.gmail.com> <20070312150756.GB24742@in.ibm.com> <20070312155643.GA12893@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070312162045.GD12176@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070312162045.GD12176@in.ibm.com> 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 Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com): > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > What's wrong with that? > > I had been asking around on "what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt > for vservers" and the answer I got (from Herbert) was "all tasks that are > in the same pid namespace". From what you are saying above, it seems to > be that there is no such "fundamental" unit. It can be a random mixture > of tasks (taken across vservers) whose resource consumption needs to be > controlled. Is that correct? If I'm reading it right, yes. If for vservers the fundamental unit of res mgmt is a vserver, that can surely be done at a higher level than in the kernel. Actually, these could be tied just by doing mount -t container -o ns,cpuset /containers So now any task in /containers/vserver1 or any subdirectory thereof would have the same cpuset constraints as /containers. OTOH, you could mount them separately mount -t container -o ns /nsproxy mount -t container -o cpuset /cpuset and now you have the freedom to split tasks in the same vserver (under /nsproxy/vserver1) into different cpusets. -serge > > > echo "cid 2" > /dev/cpu/prof/tasks > > > > Adding that feature sounds fine, > > Ok yes ..that can be a optional feature. > > -- > Regards, > vatsa