On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:05 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Paul Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Paul M. wrote:
> > > I'm not saying that they can - but they could be parallel types of
> > > resource controller for a generic container abstraction,
> >
> > When there are a sufficiently large number of sufficiently
> > similar types of objects, such as for example file systems,
> > then a 'generic container abstraction' such as vfs in the
> > file system case becomes well worth it, even essential.
>
> Well, cpusets, resource groups and bean counters are all process
> container abstractions of a sort, all with different management
> interfaces to userspace. But they all have the notion of wanting to be
> able to group tasks together.
Very true. When you read it this way it spells PAGG :), doesn't it
I think it is a good idea to have a separate grouping mechanism.
>
> Here's the kind of approach I'm suggesting. Note that the extremely
> incomplete patch attached (not included inline since it's 87K) hasn't
> even been compiled, let alone tested - it's just to illustrate the
> idea of separation between the container aspects of cpusets (which are
> almost identical to the container aspects of resource groups) and the
> resource control portions. Essentially, I've
>
> - ripped out the cpusetfs portions of cpusets and moved them to container.c
>
> - added some hooks from the container system into cpusets, to e.g.
> populate a containerfs dir with the appropriate cpusets files, or set
> the right memory/cpu masks for a task that moves into a container.
>
> - adjusted places that would need to be updated to call
> container_xxx() rather than cpuset_xxx().
>
> It would be fairly easy to hook resource groups into the same container system.
>
> Paul
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------