Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:30:07 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 12:57 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > 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.
What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset (into a container data structure) is ok.
> > Paul --
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |