Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:11:51 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>
Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, clameter@sgi.com, npiggin@suse.de,
       ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
Message-Id: <20060920131151.4a810be2.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830609201143h19f6883wb388666e27913308@mail.google.com>
References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609200916140.30572@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<1158777240.6536.89.camel@linuxchandra>
	<6599ad830609201143h19f6883wb388666e27913308@mail.google.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1064
Lines: 22

Paul M. wrote:
> Rather than adding a new process container abstraction, wouldn't it
> make more sense to change cpuset to make it more extensible (more
> separation between resource controllers), possibly rename it to
> "containers",

Without commenting one way or the other on the overall advisability
of this (for lack of sufficient clues), if we did this and renamed
"cpusets" to "containers", we would still want to export the /dev/cpuset
interface to just the CPU/Memory controllers.  Perhaps the "container"
pseudo-filesystem could optionally be mounted with a "cpuset" option,
that just exposed the cpuset relevant interface, or some such thing.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/