[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45AB531D.8050909@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:40:37 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xemul@...ru, dev@...ru, containers@...ts.osdl.org, pj@....com,
mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
serue@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 1/1] Fix a panic while mouting containers
on powerpc and some other small cleanups (Re: [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple
CPU accounting container subsystem)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> While writing/extending the cpuacct container, I found it useful to
>> know if the container resource group we are controlling is really mounted.
>> Controllers can try and avoid doing work when not mounted and start
>> when the subsystem is mounted. Also, without these callbacks, one has no
>> definite way of checking if the top_container is dummy or for real.
>>
>
> That's somewhat intentional - my aim was that the controllers
> shouldn't really care whether they're connected to the default
> hierarchy or have been bound to some mounted hierarchy. Having said
> thay, they can determine it by checking <foo>_subsys.hierarchy if they
> really want to. If that's 0 then they're in the default hierarchy (and
> can assume that all tasks are in one top-level container).
>
That makes sense, the only additional thing required is to know when
the subsystem really got mounted (we cannot keep polling hierarchy
for it:-))
> Paul
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
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