[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D35F0B.5000801@sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:51:55 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, pj@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu
controller
>>I think the risk is that OpenVZ has all the controls and resource
>>managers we need, while CKRM is still more research-ish. I find the
>>OpenVZ code much clearer, cleaner and complete at the moment, although
>>also much more conservative in its approach to solving problems.
>
>
> I think it would be nice to compare first the features provided by ckrm and
> openvz at some point and agree upon the minimum common features we need to have
> as we go forward. For instance I think Openvz assumes that tasks do
> not need to move between containers (task-groups), whereas ckrm provides this
> flexibility for workload management. This may have some effect on the
> controller/interface design, no?
OpenVZ assumes that tasks can't move between task-groups for a single reason:
user shouldn't be able to escape from the container.
But this have no implication on the design/implementation.
BTW, do you see any practical use cases for tasks jumping between resource-containers?
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists