Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750800AbWIUAJa (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:09:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750801AbWIUAJa (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:09:30 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:61005 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbWIUAJ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:09:29 -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=o5HnCg23B0vFU6UInzqG3I1AmPMejwDePA98Fj/c09gawbJUbRsAny/IKjSR6Lzdi 7xmBRY82uDZb4sCzzc1Xg== Message-ID: <6599ad830609201709r3d7b5587m2fdb573e510faacc@mail.google.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:09:22 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Paul Jackson" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction Cc: "Christoph Lameter" , rohitseth@google.com, npiggin@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20060920170544.b4fd00f4.pj@sgi.com> 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> <1158775678.8574.81.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <20060920155815.33b03991.pj@sgi.com> <1158795231.7207.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158795569.7207.23.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <20060920170544.b4fd00f4.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 21 On 9/20/06, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Yes. There's quite a bit more to cpusets than just some form, > any form, of CPU and Memory restriction. I can't imagine that > Containers, in any form, are going to replicate that API. > That would be one of the nice aspects of a generic process container abstraction linked to different resource controllers - you wouldn't need to replicate the cpuset support, you could use it in parallel with other resource controllers. (So e.g. use the cpusets support to pin a group of processes on to a given set of CPU/memory nodes, and then use the CKRM/RG CPU and disk/IO controllers to limit resource usage within those nodes) 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/