On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:32:20AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Ok, let me see if I can convey what I had in mind better:
>
> uts_ns pid_ns ipc_ns
> \ | /
> ---------------
> | nsproxy |
> ----------------
> / | \ \ <-- 'nsproxy' pointer
> T1 T2 T3 ...T1000
> | | | | <-- 'containers' pointer (4/8 KB for 1000 task)
> -------------------
> | container_group |
> ------------------
> /
> ----------
> | container |
> ----------
> |
> ----------
> | cpu_limit |
> ----------
[snip]
> We save on 4/8 KB (for 1000 tasks) by avoiding the 'containers' pointer
> in each task_struct (just to get to the resource limit information).
Having the 'containers' pointer in each task-struct is great from a
non-container res mgmt perspective. It lets you dynamically decide what
is the fundamental unit of res mgmt.
It could be {T1, T5} tasks/threads of a process, or {T1, T3, T8, T10} tasks of
a session (for limiting login time per session), or {T1, T2 ..T10, T18, T27}
tasks of a user etc.
But from a vserver/container pov, this level flexibility (at a -task- level) of
deciding the unit of res mgmt is IMHO not needed. The
vserver/container/namespace (tsk->nsproxy->some_ns) to which a task
belongs automatically defines that unit of res mgmt.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
