Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946746AbWKAJ63 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 04:58:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946749AbWKAJ62 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 04:58:28 -0500 Received: from mx3.cs.washington.edu ([128.208.3.132]:13023 "EHLO mx3.cs.washington.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946746AbWKAJ61 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 04:58:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 01:58:15 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes To: Paul Jackson cc: menage@google.com, dev@openvz.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices In-Reply-To: <20061101015030.451b7a86.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610300251w1f4e0a70ka1d64b15d8da2b77@mail.gmail.com> <20061030031531.8c671815.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830610300404v1e036bb7o7ed9ec0bc341864e@mail.gmail.com> <20061030042714.fa064218.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830610300953o7cbf5a6cs95000e11369de427@mail.gmail.com> <20061030123652.d1574176.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830610301247k179b32f5xa5950d8fc5a3926c@mail.gmail.com> <20061101015030.451b7a86.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1221 Lines: 27 On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Paul Jackson wrote: > David wrote: > > - While the process containers are only single-level, the controllers are > > _inherently_ hierarchial just like a filesystem. So it appears that > > Cpusets certainly enjoys what I would call hierarchical process > containers. I can't tell if your flat container space is just > a "for instance", or you're recommending we only have a flat > container space. > This was using the recommendation of "each process belongs to a single container that can be attached to controller nodes later." So while it is indeed possible for the controllers, whatever they are, to be hierarchical (and most assuredly should be), what is the objection against grouping processes in single-level containers? The only difference is that now when we assign processes to specific controllers with their attributes set as we desire, we are assigning a container (or group) processes instead of individual ones. David - 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/