From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751364AbXCOLYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:24:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933454AbXCOLYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:24:47 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:45933 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364AbXCOLYq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:24:46 -0400 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=eh80jQ+RLOkUSJh8g9eHTfISTSlceUSDr9ugRG1eLcUXyYqGkH73glVXwPf3q+xCH AR4r42g41dBVQVLGH3uiw== Message-ID: <6599ad830703150424t3478cd55mf9d2699f3669c9f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:24:37 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: Summary of resource management discussion Cc: xemul@sw.ru, dev@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, sam@vilain.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, winget@google.com, serue@us.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, containers@lists.osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20070312124226.GD17151@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070312124226.GD17151@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/12/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > - (subjective!) If there is a existing grouping mechanism already (say > tsk->nsproxy[->pid_ns]) over which res control needs to be applied, > then the new grouping mechanism can be considered redundant (it can > eat up unnecessary space in task_struct) If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match the way you wanted to group tasks for e.g. resource control, then yes, it would be great to use it. But I don't see an obvious candidate. The pid namespace is not it, IMO. Resource control (and other kinds of task grouping behaviour) shouldn't require virtualization. > > a. Paul Menage's patches: > > (tsk->containers->container[cpu_ctlr.subsys_id] - X)->cpu_limit Additionally, if we allow mature container subsystems to have an id declared in a global enum, then we can make the cpu_ctlr.subsys_id into a constant. > > b. rcfs > tsk->nsproxy->ctlr_data[cpu_ctlr.subsys_id]->cpu_limit So what's the '-X' that you're referring to > 3. How are cpusets related to vserver/containers? > > Should it be possible to, lets say, create exclusive cpusets and > attach containers to different cpusets? Sounds reasonable. > > 6. As tasks move around namespaces/resource-classes, their > tsk->nsproxy/containers object will change. Do we simple create > a new nsproxy/containers object or optimize storage by searching > for one which matches the task's new requirements? I think the latter. > > - If we don't support hierarchy in res controllers today > but were to add that support later, then > user-interface shouldn't change. That's why > designining -atleast- the user interface to support > hierarchy may make sense Right - having support for a hierarchy in the API doesn't mean that individual controllers have to support being in a hierarchy. Paul