Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750845AbWIUAfH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:35:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750840AbWIUAfH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:35:07 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:47670 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750721AbWIUAfF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:35:05 -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=ZcV/yJJE/VlRnvILz7wK/y9asTDO9Qn6y5sD7++Sgg1atOQoNIgIcPeIWdnlM1WAp DNxPDq2g758XbnVDHVHIw== Message-ID: <6599ad830609201734m1566876aya2605efaf0a5cb63@mail.google.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:34:52 -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: <1158798607.6536.112.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> <6599ad830609201257m22605deei25ae6a0eadb6c516@mail.google.com> <1158798607.6536.112.camel@linuxchandra> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 875 Lines: 19 On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset > (into a container data structure) is ok. Can you suggest a realistic scenario in which it's not? Don't forget that since the container abstraction is hierarchical, you don't have to use both at the same level. So you could easily e.g. have a parent container in which you bound to a set of memory/cpu nodes, but had no rg limits, and several subcontainers where you configured nothing special for cpuset parameters (so inherited the parent params) but tweaked different rg parameters. 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/