On 3/12/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- (subjective!) If there is a existing grouping mechanism already (say tsk->nsproxy[->pid_ns]) over which res control needs to be applied, then the new grouping mechanism can be considered redundant (it can eat up unnecessary space in task_struct)
If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match the way you wanted to group tasks for e.g. resource control, then yes, it would be great to use it. But I don't see an obvious candidate. The pid namespace is not it, IMO. Resource control (and other kinds of task grouping behaviour) shouldn't require virtualization.
a. Paul Menage's patches: (tsk->containers->container[cpu_ctlr.subsys_id] - X)->cpu_limit
Additionally, if we allow mature container subsystems to have an id declared in a global enum, then we can make the cpu_ctlr.subsys_id into a constant.
b. rcfs tsk->nsproxy->ctlr_data[cpu_ctlr.subsys_id]->cpu_limit
So what's the '-X' that you're referring to
3. How are cpusets related to vserver/containers? Should it be possible to, lets say, create exclusive cpusets and attach containers to different cpusets?
Sounds reasonable.
6. As tasks move around namespaces/resource-classes, their tsk->nsproxy/containers object will change. Do we simple create a new nsproxy/containers object or optimize storage by searching for one which matches the task's new requirements?
I think the latter.
- If we don't support hierarchy in res controllers today but were to add that support later, then user-interface shouldn't change. That's why designining -atleast- the user interface to support hierarchy may make sense
Right - having support for a hierarchy in the API doesn't mean that individual controllers have to support being in a hierarchy. Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/