Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> writes:

>> they are indirectly related. Sorry for the noise.
>
> Well ... if this is noise, it should be me apologizing, not you <grin>.
> I'm the one who asked.
>
>> Paul Menage's container patches provide a process aggregation mechanism, 
>> like PAGG did. This is a common requirement for resource management and
>> other container features like resource isolation and checkpoint/restart.
>
> So ... will you (those using the netns patches) be using Paul Menage's
> containers, or competing with them for the same ends, or what?
>
> To repeat my original question, what is the relation between the work
> described on this thread (which some OLS discussions have decided to
> base on the netns patches) and Paul Menage's containers and my (now the
> community's) cpusets.

Largely orthogonal.

This discussions is hard because Paul has appropriated our term for
the user space aggregation of all of the pieces (a container) using
for some subset of that, so my apologies if there is some confusion.

There are a few issues with the filesystem part of Paul's patchset
that currently do not allow for nested containers.

Generally the Paul's container filesystem work provides a generic
framework for resources controls that we want in addition to the
namespaces.  I'm not at all certain I like the filesystem interface
to user space, but having a common interface to user space and helper
code to use it for all of the resource controls makes sense.

I think there is a little more like a user space visible identifier
that is also interesting.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers