Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
To: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, npiggin@suse.de,
       ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org, clameter@sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830609211310s4e036e55h89bab26432d83c11@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>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201252030.32409@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <1158798715.6536.115.camel@linuxchandra>
	 <20060920173638.370e774a.pj@sgi.com>
	 <6599ad830609201742h71d112f4tae8fe390cb874c0b@mail.google.com>
	 <1158803120.6536.139.camel@linuxchandra>
	 <6599ad830609201852k12cee6eey9086247c9bdec8b@mail.google.com>
	 <1158869186.6536.205.camel@linuxchandra>
	 <6599ad830609211310s4e036e55h89bab26432d83c11@mail.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: IBM
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:44:22 -0700
Message-Id: <1158875062.6536.210.camel@linuxchandra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1749
Lines: 42

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 13:10 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/21/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > The current fake numa support requires you to choose your node layout
> > > at boot time - I've been working with 64 fake nodes of 128M each,
> > > which gives a reasonable granularity for dividing a machine between
> > > multiple different sized jobs.
> >
> > It still will not satisfy what OpenVZ/Container folks are looking for:
> > 100s of containers.
> 
> Right - so fake-numa is not the right solution for everyone, and I
> never suggested that it is. (Having said that, there are discussions
> underway to make the zone-based approach more practical - if you could
> have dynamically-resizable nodes, this would be more applicable to
> openvz).

It would still have the other issue you pointed, i.e the userspace being
able to cope up with memory allocators dynamics.
 
> 
> But, there's no reason that the OpenVZ resource control mechanisms
> couldn't be hooked into a generic process container mechanism along
> with cpusets and RG.

Isn't that one of the things we are trying to avoid (each one having
their own solution, especially when we _can_ have a common solution).
 
> 
> Paul
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/