linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:25:45 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, npiggin@...e.de,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:05 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> > Paul M. wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that they can - but they could be parallel types of
> > > resource controller for a generic container abstraction,
> >
> > When there are a sufficiently large number of sufficiently
> > similar types of objects, such as for example file systems,
> > then a 'generic container abstraction' such as vfs in the
> > file system case becomes well worth it, even essential.
> 
> Well, cpusets, resource groups and bean counters are all process
> container abstractions of a sort, all with different management
> interfaces to userspace. But they all have the notion of wanting to be
> able to group tasks together.

Very true. When you read it this way it spells PAGG :), doesn't it

I think it is a good idea to have a separate grouping mechanism.

> 
> Here's the kind of approach I'm suggesting. Note that the extremely
> incomplete patch attached (not included inline since it's 87K) hasn't
> even been compiled, let alone tested - it's just to illustrate the
> idea of separation between the container aspects of cpusets (which are
> almost identical to the container aspects of resource groups) and the
> resource control portions. Essentially, I've
> 
> - ripped out the cpusetfs portions of cpusets and moved them to container.c
> 
> - added some hooks from the container system into cpusets, to e.g.
> populate a containerfs dir with the appropriate cpusets files, or set
> the right memory/cpu masks for a task that moves into a container.
> 
> - adjusted places that would need to be updated to call
> container_xxx() rather than cpuset_xxx().
> 
> It would be fairly easy to hook resource groups into the same container system.
> 
> 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/