From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030595AbXBMAmh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:42:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030601AbXBMAmh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:42:37 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:51589 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030595AbXBMAmg (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:42:36 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=SDdg3ASTHrlGxS+xac3shmbyFMH8asWO4t2wbis9+EF0++Htrfw1GJ2CptFzXLfvK 8ZW9vDuohvrqSLfXfWfCg== Message-ID: <6599ad830702121642w80c53ddud3c77c13af99d2b7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:42:15 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Sam Vilain" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, dev@sw.ru, rohitseth@google.com, pj@sgi.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, serue@us.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <45D1068D.4060906@vilain.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <45D0EC68.9090009@vilain.net> <6599ad830702121515p10bc1b58kf1d29367b9b18016@mail.gmail.com> <45D1068D.4060906@vilain.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/12/07, Sam Vilain wrote: > Ask yourself this - what do you need the container structure for so > badly, that virtualising the individual resources does not provide for? Primarily, that otherwise every module that wants to affect/monitor behaviour of a group of associated processes has to implement its own process grouping abstraction. As an example, the CPU accounting patch that in included in my patch set as an illustration of a simple resource monitoring module is just 250 lines, almost entirely in one file; if it also had to handle associating tasks together into groups and presenting a filesystem interface to the user it would be far larger and would have a much bigger footprint on the kernel. >>From the point of view of the virtual server containers, the advantage is that you're integrated with a standard filesystem interface for determining group membership. It does become simpler to combine virtual servers and resource controllers, although I grant you that you could juggle that from userspace without the additional kernel support. Paul