[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120601155457.GA30909@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:54:57 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: jeff.liu@...cle.com
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
jack@...e.cz, glommer@...allels.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
tytso@....edu, bpm@....com, chris.mason@...cle.com,
hch@...radead.org, christopher.jones@...cle.com,
david@...morbit.com, tinguely@....com, tm@....ma,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: container disk quota
Hello,
On Wed 30-05-12 22:58:54, jeff.liu@...cle.com wrote:
> According to glauber's comments regarding container disk quota, it should be binded to mount
> namespace rather than cgroup.
>
> Per my try out, it works just fine by combining with userland quota utilitly in this way.
> However, they are something has to be done at user tools too IMHO.
>
> Currently, the patchset is in very initial phase, I'd like to post it early to seek more
> feedbacks from you guys.
>
> Hopefully I can clarify my ideas clearly.
So what I miss in this introductory email is some highlevel description
like what is the desired functionality you try to implement and what is it
good for. Looking at the examples below, it seems you want to be able to
set quota limits for namespace-uid (and also namespace-gid???) pairs, am I
right?
If yes, then I would like to understand one thing: When writing to a
file, used space is accounted to the owner of the file. Now how do we
determine owning namespace? Do you implicitely assume that only processes
from one namespace will be able to access the file?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists