Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:29:32 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@cs.washington.edu>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, menage@google.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
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
In-Reply-To: <4549AF81.2060706@openvz.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0611021714080.12501@attu4.cs.washington.edu>
References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <45460743.8000501@openvz.org>
 <20061031163418.GD9588@in.ibm.com> <4548545B.4070701@openvz.org>
 <20061101175015.GA22976@in.ibm.com> <4549AF81.2060706@openvz.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1035
Lines: 21

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote:

> So if we're going to have different groupings for different
> resources what's the use of "container" grouping all "controllers"
> together? I see this situation like each task_struct carries
> pointers to kmemsize controller, pivate pages controller,
> physical pages controller, CPU time controller, disk bandwidth
> controller, etc. Right? Or did I miss something?

My understanding is that the only addition to the task_struct is a pointer 
to the struct container it belongs to.  Then, the various controllers can 
register the control files through the fs-based container interface and 
all the manipulation can be done at that level.  Having each task_struct 
containing pointers to individual resource nodes was never proposed.

		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/