On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:24:59PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > what about identifying different resource categories and > > handling them according to the typical usage pattern? > > > > like the following: > > > > - cpu and scheduler related accounting/limits > > - memory related accounting/limits > > - network related accounting/limits > > - generic/file system related accounting/limits > > > > I don't worry too much about having the generic/file stuff > > attached to the nsproxy, but the cpu/sched stuff might be > > better off being directly reachable from the task > > I think we should experiment with both combinations (a direct pointer > to cpu_limit structure from task_struct and an indirect pointer), get > some numbers and then decide. Or do you have results already with > respect to that? nope, no numbers for that, but I appreciate some testing and probably can do some testing in this regard too (although I want to get some testing done for the resource sharing between guests first) > > > 3. How are cpusets related to vserver/containers? > > > > > > Should it be possible to, lets say, create exclusive cpusets and > > > attach containers to different cpusets? > > > > that is what Linux-VServer does atm, i.e. you can put > > an entire guest into a specific cpu set > > Interesting. What abt /dev/cpuset view? host only for now best, Herbert > Is that same for all containers or do you restrict that view > to the containers cpuset only? > > -- > Regards, > vatsa > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers