Paul Menage wrote: > 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 Aaah.. I see, that makes sense from a cpusets/containers perspective. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
