[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070604204131.GB19409@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:41:31 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru,
vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com, cpw@....com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, mbligh@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers
Quoting Paul Menage (menage@...gle.com):
> On 6/4/07, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> >
> >Yup - early in the life of cpusets, a created cpuset inherited the cpus
> >and mems of its parent. But that broke the exclusive property big
> >time. You will recall that a cpu_exclusive or mem_exclusive cpuset
> >cannot overlap the cpus or memory, respectively, of any of its sibling
> >cpusets.
> >
>
> Maybe we could make it a per-cpuset option whether children should
> inherit mems/cpus or not?
The values can be changed after the cpuset is populated, right? So
really these are just defaults? Would it then make sense to just
default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's
value?
An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets
could not be applied to namespaces...
thanks,
-serge
-
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