Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750878AbWKAXsb (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:48:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750855AbWKAXsb (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:48:31 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:61762 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750847AbWKAXsa (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:48:30 -0500 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=k34zmVV//gTmW9oVBgEbOJwBIo/al5BXzqMw+af/v8mEbdacIm767zOKE5E+3wr7Y yx/NEjScMzHyp1KxrlpyQ== Message-ID: <6599ad830611011548h4c0273c0xc5a653ea8726a692@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:48:21 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Chris Friesen" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <45490F0D.7000804@nortel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610300251w1f4e0a70ka1d64b15d8da2b77@mail.gmail.com> <20061101173356.GA18182@in.ibm.com> <45490F0D.7000804@nortel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1332 Lines: 30 On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen wrote: > > I just thought I'd weigh in on this. As far as our usage pattern is > concerned, guarantees cannot be met via limits. > > I want to give "x" cpu to container X, "y" cpu to container Y, and "z" > cpu to container Z. I agree that these are issues - but they don't really affect the container framework directly. The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits. Some controllers won't even have this concept (cpusets doesn't really, for instance, and containers don't have to be just to do with quantitative resource control). I sent out a patch a while ago that showed how ResGroups could be turned into effectively a library on top of a generic container system - so ResGroups controllers could write to the ResGroups interface, and let the library handle setting up control parameters and parsing limits and guarantees. I expect the same thing could be done for UBC. 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/