Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161248AbWHDOvD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:51:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161249AbWHDOvD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:51:03 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:46984 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161248AbWHDOvB (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:51:01 -0400 Message-ID: <44D35F0B.5000801@sw.ru> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:51:55 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vatsa@in.ibm.com CC: Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, sam@vilain.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvz.org, efault@gmx.de, balbir@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, nagar@watson.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller References: <20060804050753.GD27194@in.ibm.com> <20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060803224253.49068b98.akpm@osdl.org> <1154684950.23655.178.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060804114109.GA28988@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20060804114109.GA28988@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1235 Lines: 25 >>I think the risk is that OpenVZ has all the controls and resource >>managers we need, while CKRM is still more research-ish. I find the >>OpenVZ code much clearer, cleaner and complete at the moment, although >>also much more conservative in its approach to solving problems. > > > I think it would be nice to compare first the features provided by ckrm and > openvz at some point and agree upon the minimum common features we need to have > as we go forward. For instance I think Openvz assumes that tasks do > not need to move between containers (task-groups), whereas ckrm provides this > flexibility for workload management. This may have some effect on the > controller/interface design, no? OpenVZ assumes that tasks can't move between task-groups for a single reason: user shouldn't be able to escape from the container. But this have no implication on the design/implementation. BTW, do you see any practical use cases for tasks jumping between resource-containers? Kirill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/