Paul Menage wrote: > On 7/10/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> A (still under construction) list of features we expect to be worked on >> next year looks like this: >> 4. task containers functionality >> specific containers > > A couple of more container subsystem requests that have come out of > the Linux Foundation Japan symposium, although I think they've also > been mentioned before more than once - per-container swap and disk I/O > scheduling. > I think per container swap is interesting > I'm not familiar enough with the current Linux disk scheduler code to > know how easy/hard it is to add rate guarantees on a per-container > basis, but the swap one should be easier. > > One potential issue with the swap container is how integrated should > it be with the memory controller? I can certainly see people wanting > to be able to use a swap controller without requiring a page-based > memory controller (e.g. you might want to combine it with node-based > control via cpusets instead) but adding two pointers to the mm_struct, > one for swap controller subsystem and one for memory controller > subsystem, seems a little bit ugly. > Well, it depends on how you define ugly. We could so something like the namespace approach, have something like struct mem_container_ptrs { swap_list; mem_container_ptr; }; Although, I agree that per container swap is important, I feel that we should add in the functionality, once we have basic page based memory controller. It would make the whole setup easier to test for functionality and performance. > Paul -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers