From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030495AbXCLQN4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:13:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030510AbXCLQNz (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:13:55 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:38780 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030495AbXCLQNy (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:13:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:50:45 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: 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: <20070312162045.GD12176@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070312155643.GA12893@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > > echo "cid 2" > /dev/cpu/prof/tasks > > Adding that feature sounds fine, Ok yes ..that can be a optional feature. -- Regards, vatsa