Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932351AbWITT5S (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:57:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932353AbWITT5S (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:57:18 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:39655 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932351AbWITT5R (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:57:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=G3l10ZOxqTv96n9dtECrPadPnZEfaGyeYD6wW9kBXRt8ImPKwsrxBi85o2tseO2GN pboDhMtsYxGkmQAf2EU+A== Message-ID: <6599ad830609201257m22605deei25ae6a0eadb6c516@mail.google.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:57:10 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction Cc: npiggin@suse.de, CKRM-Tech , linux-kernel , pj@sgi.com, "Rohit Seth" , devel@openvz.org, "Christoph Lameter" In-Reply-To: <1158780923.6536.110.camel@linuxchandra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158777240.6536.89.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830609201143h19f6883wb388666e27913308@mail.google.com> <1158778496.6536.95.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830609201225k3d38afe2gea7adc2fa8067e0@mail.google.com> <1158780923.6536.110.camel@linuxchandra> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1156 Lines: 31 On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > At its most crude, this could be something like: > > > > struct container { > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS > > struct cpuset cs; > > #endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS > > struct resource_group rg; > > #endif > > }; > > Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both. Not necessarily - you could have both compiled in, and each would only worry about the resource management that they cared about - e.g. you could use the memory node isolation portion of cpusets (in conjunction with fake numa nodes/zones) for memory containment, but give every cpuset access to all CPUs and control CPU usage via the resource groups CPU controller. The generic code would take care of details like container creation/destruction (with appropriate callbacks into cpuset and/or res_group code, tracking task membership of containers, etc. Paul - 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/