Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:52 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Interesting. So you could set up the fake node with "guarantee" and let > > it grow till "limit" ? > > Sure - that works great. (Theoretically you could do this all in > userspace - start by assigning "guarantee" nodes to a > container/cpuset and when it gets close to its memory limit assign > more nodes to it. But in practice userspace can't keep up with rapid > memory allocators. > I agree, especially when one of your main object is resource utilization. Think about the magnitude of this when you have to deal with 100s of containers. > > > > BTW, can you do these with fake nodes: > > - dynamic creation > > - dynamic removal > > - dynamic change of size > > The current fake numa support requires you to choose your node layout > at boot time - I've been working with 64 fake nodes of 128M each, > which gives a reasonable granularity for dividing a machine between > multiple different sized jobs. It still will not satisfy what OpenVZ/Container folks are looking for: 100s of containers. > > > > > Also, How could we account when a process moves from one node to > > another ? > > If you want to do that (the systems I'm working on don't really) you > could probably do it with the migrate_pages() syscall. It might not be > that efficient though. Totally agree, that will be very costly. > > Paul -- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
On 9/21/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > The current fake numa support requires you to choose your node layout > > at boot time - I've been working with 64 fake nodes of 128M each, > > which gives a reasonable granularity for dividing a machine between > > multiple different sized jobs. > > It still will not satisfy what OpenVZ/Container folks are looking for: > 100s of containers. Right - so fake-numa is not the right solution for everyone, and I never suggested that it is. (Having said that, there are discussions underway to make the zone-based approach more practical - if you could have dynamically-resizable nodes, this would be more applicable to openvz). But, there's no reason that the OpenVZ resource control mechanisms couldn't be hooked into a generic process container mechanism along with cpusets and RG. Paul