[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:39:52 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, menage@...gle.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 Jackson (pj@....com):
> > Would it then make sense to just
> > default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's
> > value?
>
> Which could well be empty, which in turn puts one back in the position
> of dealing with a newborn cpuset that is empty (of cpus or of memory),
> or else it introduces a new and odd constraint on when cpusets can be
> created (only when there are non-exclusive cpus and mems available.)
>
> > An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets
> > could not be applied to namespaces...
>
> I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand why you couldn't
> do it in two steps - make the container, and then populate it with
> resources.
Sorry, please clarify - are you saying that now you do understand, or
that I should explain?
> But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of
> option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting.
Paul (uh, Menage :) should I do a patch for this or have you got it
already?
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