[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830702121642w80c53ddud3c77c13af99d2b7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:42:15 -0800
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Sam Vilain" <sam@...ain.net>
Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xemul@...ru, dev@...ru, rohitseth@...gle.com, pj@....com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, winget@...gle.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
On 2/12/07, Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net> wrote:
> Ask yourself this - what do you need the container structure for so
> badly, that virtualising the individual resources does not provide for?
Primarily, that otherwise every module that wants to affect/monitor
behaviour of a group of associated processes has to implement its own
process grouping abstraction.
As an example, the CPU accounting patch that in included in my patch
set as an illustration of a simple resource monitoring module is just
250 lines, almost entirely in one file; if it also had to handle
associating tasks together into groups and presenting a filesystem
interface to the user it would be far larger and would have a much
bigger footprint on the kernel.
>From the point of view of the virtual server containers, the advantage
is that you're integrated with a standard filesystem interface for
determining group membership. It does become simpler to combine
virtual servers and resource controllers, although I grant you that
you could juggle that from userspace without the additional kernel
support.
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