On 3/12/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
