From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752520AbXCLVPx (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:15:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752547AbXCLVPx (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:15:53 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:40596 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752520AbXCLVPw (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:15:52 -0400 Message-ID: <45F5C301.8090500@vilain.net> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:15:45 +1300 From: Sam Vilain User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060521) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Menage , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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! 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> <20070312162045.GD12176@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20070312162045.GD12176@in.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > 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? > Sure, for instance, all postgres processes across all servers might be put in a different IO and buffercache use container by the system administrator. Sam.