[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D0EC68.9090009@vilain.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:38:32 +1300
From: Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>
To: menage@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
xemul@...ru, serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
menage@...gle.com wrote:
> Generic Process Containers
> --------------------------
>
> There have recently been various proposals floating around for
> resource management/accounting and other task grouping subsystems in
> the kernel, including ResGroups, User BeanCounters, NSProxy
> containers, and others. These all need the basic abstraction of being
> able to group together multiple processes in an aggregate, in order to
> track/limit the resources permitted to those processes, or control
> other behaviour of the processes, and all implement this grouping in
> different ways.
>
I know I'm a bit out of touch, but AIUI the NSProxy *is* the container.
We decided a long time ago that a container was basically just a set of
namespaces, which includes all of the subsystems you mention.
This would suggesting re-write this patchset, part 2 as a "CPUSet
namespace", part 4 as a "CPU scheduling namespace", parts 5 and 6 as
"Resource Limits Namespace" (drop this "BeanCounter" brand), and of
course part 7 falls away.
Sam.
-
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