Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:50:17AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > The nsproxy container subsystem could be said to be that unification. > > If we really wanted to I suppose we could now always mount the nsproxy > > subsystem, get rid of tsk->nsproxy, and always get thta through it's > > nsproxy subsystem container. But then that causes trouble with being > > able to mount a hierarachy like > > > > mount -t container -o ns,cpuset > > What troubles will mounting both cpuset and ns in the same hierarchy > cause? Wow, don't recall the full context here. But at least with Paul's container patchset, a subsystem can only be mounted once. So if the nsproxy container subsystem is always mounted by itself, then you cannot remount it to bind it with cpusets. > IMO that may be a good feature by itself, which makes it convenient to > bind different containers to different cpusets. Absolutely. -serge > In this case, we want 'ns' subsystem to override all decisions wrt > mkdir of directories and also movement of tasks b/n different > groups. This is automatically accomplished in the patches, by having ns > subsystem veto mkdir/can_attach request which aren't allowed as per > namespace semantics (but which may be allowed as per cpuset semantics). > > > so we'd have to fix something. It also slows things down... > > -- > Regards, > vatsa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
