Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757150AbXFDUlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:41:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754262AbXFDUle (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:41:34 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:50186 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754226AbXFDUld (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:41:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:41:31 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Paul Menage Cc: Paul Jackson , "Serge E. Hallyn" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, cpw@sgi.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers Message-ID: <20070604204131.GB19409@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070529130104.461765000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070604191412.GA901@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070604123151.4db007a6.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830706041330q1802ebf2n2bac63f706a73a50@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830706041330q1802ebf2n2bac63f706a73a50@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1076 Lines: 28 Quoting Paul Menage (menage@google.com): > On 6/4/07, Paul Jackson wrote: > > > >Yup - early in the life of cpusets, a created cpuset inherited the cpus > >and mems of its parent. But that broke the exclusive property big > >time. You will recall that a cpu_exclusive or mem_exclusive cpuset > >cannot overlap the cpus or memory, respectively, of any of its sibling > >cpusets. > > > > Maybe we could make it a per-cpuset option whether children should > inherit mems/cpus or not? The values can be changed after the cpuset is populated, right? So really these are just defaults? Would it then make sense to just default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's value? An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets could not be applied to namespaces... thanks, -serge - 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/