Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760847AbXFDVFm (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:05:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753908AbXFDVFf (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:05:35 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:42116 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753549AbXFDVFe (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:05:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:05:33 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: menage@google.com, serue@us.ibm.com, 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: <20070604140533.65e25286.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <20070604204131.GB19409@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1201 Lines: 28 > Would it then make sense to just > default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's > value? Which could well be empty, which in turn puts one back in the position of dealing with a newborn cpuset that is empty (of cpus or of memory), or else it introduces a new and odd constraint on when cpusets can be created (only when there are non-exclusive cpus and mems available.) > An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets > could not be applied to namespaces... I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand why you couldn't do it in two steps - make the container, and then populate it with resources. But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 - 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/