[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1158798607.6536.112.camel@linuxchandra>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:30:07 -0700
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: npiggin@...e.de, CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pj@....com,
Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 12:57 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > At its most crude, this could be something like:
> > >
> > > struct container {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> > > struct cpuset cs;
> > > #endif
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS
> > > struct resource_group rg;
> > > #endif
> > > };
> >
> > Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both.
>
> Not necessarily - you could have both compiled in, and each would only
> worry about the resource management that they cared about - e.g. you
> could use the memory node isolation portion of cpusets (in conjunction
> with fake numa nodes/zones) for memory containment, but give every
> cpuset access to all CPUs and control CPU usage via the resource
> groups CPU controller.
>
> The generic code would take care of details like container
> creation/destruction (with appropriate callbacks into cpuset and/or
> res_group code, tracking task membership of containers, etc.
What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset
(into a container data structure) is ok.
>
> Paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@...ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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