| Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction [message #6739 is a reply to message #6614] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 19:25  |
Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> We had this discussion more than 18 months back and concluded that it is
> not the right thing to do. Here is the link to the thread:
Even if the resource control portions aren't totally compatible,
having two separate process container abstractions in the kernel is
sub-optimal, both in terms of efficiency and userspace management. How
about splitting out the container portions of cpuset from the actual
resource control, so that CKRM/RG can hang off of it too? Creation of
a cpuset or a resource group would be driven by creation of a
container; at fork time, a task inherits its parent's container, and
hence its cpuset and/or resource groups.
At its most crude, this could be something like:
struct container {
#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
struct cpuset cs;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS
struct resource_group rg;
#endif
};
but at least it would be sharing some of the abstractions.
Paul
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
