| Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction [message #6741 is a reply to message #6617] |
Wed, 20 September 2006 19:57  |
Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > };
>
> Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both.
Not necessarily - you could have both compiled in, and each would only
worry about the resource management that they cared about - e.g. you
could use the memory node isolation portion of cpusets (in conjunction
with fake numa nodes/zones) for memory containment, but give every
cpuset access to all CPUs and control CPU usage via the resource
groups CPU controller.
The generic code would take care of details like container
creation/destruction (with appropriate callbacks into cpuset and/or
res_group code, tracking task membership of containers, etc.
Paul
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
