On 7/9/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> - splitting the memory and cpu isolation parts of cpusets into two > separate subsystems (still backwards-compatible) I see memory isolation using cpusets as very topology dependent and I am not sure if the model would work for memory controllers.
I wasn't suggesting making any changes to the page-based memory controllers as part of this. Currently in the mainline kernel, the cpumask and nodemask portions of cpusets are essentially two mostly-independent modules that happen to be coupled together in the same file and use the same process tracking system (cpusets). Once we have generic process containers, splitting this into a "cpusets" subsystem that handles all the cpumask portions of the existing cpusets, and a "memsets" subsystem that handles all the nodemask and memory migration portions would remove that coupling and give more flexibility. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
