[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070306162101.GC7046@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:51:01 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...ru, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
winget@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org, menage@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> groups like Memory, Disk Space, Sockets might make
> sense though, although we never had a single request
> for any overlapping in the resource management (while
> we have quite a few users of overlapping Network spaces)
If we have to provide this flexibilty of different groupings for
different resources, then I dont see how we can get to the limit with
less than 3 dereferences (unless we bloat the task_struct to point to
the various limit structures directly).
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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