lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
    Paul Menage wrote:
    >> Using the container name is bad and it led to this stupid argument.
    >>
    >> The fundamental unit of what we have merged into the kernel is the
    >> namespace. The aggregate of all namespaces and everything is the
    >> container.
    >>
    > What are you defining here as "everything"? If you mean "all things
    > that could be applied to a segregated group of processes such as a
    > virtual server",

    The term "segregated group of processes" is too vague. Segregated for
    what? What is the kernel supposed to do with this information?

    > I guess what it comes down to, is why is an aggregation of namespaces
    > suitable for the name "container", when an aggregation of namespaces
    > and other resource controllers isn't?
    >

    This argument goes away if you just rename these resource groups to
    resource namespaces.

    > What do you think might be a better name for the generic process
    > groups that I'm pushing? As I said, I'm happy to do a simple
    > search/replace on my code to give a different name if that turned out
    > to be the gating factor to getting it merged. But I'd be inclined to
    > leave that decision up to Andrew/Linus.
    >

    Did you like the names I came up with in my original reply?

    - CPUset namespace for CPU partitioning
    - Resource namespaces:
    - cpusched namespace for CPU
    - ulimit namespace for memory
    - quota namespace for disk space
    - io namespace for disk activity
    - etc

    >> For the case of namespaces I don't see how your code makes things
    >> better. I do not see a real problem that you are solving.
    >>
    > I'm trying to solve the problem that lots of different folks
    > (including us) are trying to do things that aggregate multiple process
    > into some kind of constrained group, and are all trying to use
    > different and incompatible ways of grouping/tracking those processes.
    >

    Maybe what's missing is a set of helper macros/functions that assist
    with writing new namespaces. Perhaps you can give some more examples
    and we can consider these on a case by case basis.

    Sam.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-20 23:01    [W:4.080 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site