Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932152AbWIVA51 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:57:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932151AbWIVA51 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:57:27 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:6073 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932152AbWIVA50 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:57:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Paul Jackson Cc: npiggin@suse.de, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com, menage@google.com, devel@openvz.org, clameter@sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20060921172427.25ddb7ea.pj@sgi.com> References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.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> <1158875062.6536.210.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830609211509x17f0306qbe6d0ef86b86cbc9@mail.google.com> <1158883601.6536.223.camel@linuxchandra> <20060921172427.25ddb7ea.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:57:22 -0700 Message-Id: <1158886642.6536.233.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1950 Lines: 50 On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:24 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > Chandra wrote: > > There are two (competing) memory controllers in the kernel. But, distro > > can turn only one ON. > > Huh - time for me to play the dummy again ... > > My (fog shrouded) vision of the future has: > 1) mempolicy - provides fine grained memory placement for task on self > 2) cpuset - provides system wide cpu and memory placement for unrelated tasks > 3) some form of resource groups - measures and limits proportion of various > resources used, including cpu cycles, memory pages and network bandwidth, > by collections of tasks.k > > Both (2) and (3) need to group tasks in flexible ways distinct from the > existing task groupings supported by the kernel. > > I thought that Paul M suggested (2) and (3) use common underlying > grouping or 'bucket' technology - the infrastructure that separates > tasks into buckets and can be used to associate various resource > metrics and limits with each bucket. > > I can't quite figure out whether you have in mind above: > * a conflict between two competing memory controllers for (3), Yes. > * or a conflict between cpusets and one memory controller for (3). No. > > And either way, I don't see what that has to do with the underling > bucket technology - how we group tasks generically. True. I clarified it in the reply to Paul M. > > Guess I am missing something ... > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/