Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com):
> 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?

If I'm reading it right, yes.

If for vservers the fundamental unit of res mgmt is a vserver, that can
surely be done at a higher level than in the kernel.

Actually, these could be tied just by doing

	mount -t container -o ns,cpuset /containers

So now any task in /containers/vserver1 or any subdirectory thereof
would have the same cpuset constraints as /containers.  OTOH, you could
mount them separately

	mount -t container -o ns /nsproxy
	mount -t container -o cpuset /cpuset

and now you have the freedom to split tasks in the same vserver
(under /nsproxy/vserver1) into different cpusets.

-serge

> > > 	echo "cid 2" > /dev/cpu/prof/tasks 
> > 
> > Adding that feature sounds fine, 
> 
> Ok yes ..that can be a optional feature.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> vatsa
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers