[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45486925.4000201@openvz.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:30:13 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
> Consensus/Debated Points
> ------------------------
>
> Consensus:
>
> - Provide resource control over a group of tasks
> - Support movement of task from one resource group to another
> - Dont support heirarchy for now
> - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource
> type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly
> met thr limits.
>
> Debated:
> - syscall vs configfs interface
OK. Let's stop at configfs interface to move...
> - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets
> - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource
> groups/containers under a cpuset?
> - Should we have different groupings for different resources?
I propose to discuss this question as this is the most important
now from my point of view.
I believe this can be done, but can't imagine how to use this...
> - Support movement of all threads of a process from one group
> to another atomically?
I propose such a solution: if a user asks to move /proc/<pid>
then move the whole task with threads.
If user asks to move /proc/<pid>/task/<tid> then move just
a single thread.
What do you think?
-
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