[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830609201836s66623229y42d7301056e4a4e8@mail.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:36:01 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: npiggin@...e.de, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com,
lhms-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, rohitseth@...gle.com,
devel@...nvz.org, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [Lhms-devel] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On 9/20/06, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> For example
>
> In following scenario,
> ==
> (1). add <pid> > /mnt/configfs/containers/my_container/add_task
> (2). <pid> does some work.
> (3). echo <pid> > /mnt/configfs/containers/my_container/rm_task
> (4). echo <pid> > /mnt/configfs/containers/my_container2/add_task
> ==
> (if fake-pgdat/memory-hotplug is used)
> The pages used by <pid> in (2) will be accounted in 'my_container' after (3).
> Is this user's wrong use of system ?
Yes. You can't use memory node partitioning for file pages in this way
unless you have strict controls over who can access the data sets in
question, and are careful to prevent people from moving between
containers. So it's not suitable for all uses of resource-isolating
containers.
Who is to say that the pages allocated in (2) *should* be reaccounted
to my_container2 after (3)? Some people might want that, other
(including me) might not.
Paul
-
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