Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750728AbWITXjx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:39:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750723AbWITXjx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:39:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:55336 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbWITXjw (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:39:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=PBzpEGDD50KPGw71JmdNbO97uWOZnGD7OqvTdJqY3qn4iKEafkQdNUKXevNlrX/OM OiL5b8a5QBejbvri1/c2A== Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Paul Jackson , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@openvz.org, npiggin@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158773208.8574.53.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158775678.8574.81.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <20060920155815.33b03991.pj@sgi.com> <1158795231.7207.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:39:29 -0700 Message-Id: <1158795569.7207.23.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1150 Lines: 31 On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > > How does the containers implementation under discussion behave if a > > > process is part of a container and the container is removed? > > It first removes all the tasks belonging to this container (which means > > resetting the container pointers in task_struct and then per page > > container pointer belonging to anonymous pages). It then clears the > > container pointers in the mapping structure and also in the pages > > belonging to these files. > > So the application continues to run unharmed? > It will hit a one time penalty of getting those pointers reset, but besides that it will continue to run fine. > Could we equip containers with restrictions on processors and nodes for > NUMA? > Yes. That is something we will have to do (I think part of CPU handler-TBD). -rohit - 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/