Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:50:17AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> The nsproxy container subsystem could be said to be that unification.
> If we really wanted to I suppose we could now always mount the nsproxy
> subsystem, get rid of tsk->nsproxy, and always get thta through it's
> nsproxy subsystem container.  But then that causes trouble with being
> able to mount a hierarachy like
> 
> 	mount -t container -o ns,cpuset

What troubles will mounting both cpuset and ns in the same hierarchy
cause? IMO that may be a good feature by itself, which makes it convenient to 
bind different containers to different cpusets.

In this case, we want 'ns' subsystem to override all decisions wrt
mkdir of directories and also movement of tasks b/n different
groups. This is automatically accomplished in the patches, by having ns
subsystem veto mkdir/can_attach request which aren't allowed as per
namespace semantics (but which may be allowed as per cpuset semantics).

> so we'd have to fix something.  It also slows things down...

-- 
Regards,
vatsa