On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We had this discussion more than 18 months back and concluded that it is
> not the right thing to do. Here is the link to the thread:
Even if the resource control portions aren't totally compatible,
having two separate process container abstractions in the kernel is
sub-optimal, both in terms of efficiency and userspace management. How
about splitting out the container portions of cpuset from the actual
resource control, so that CKRM/RG can hang off of it too? Creation of
a cpuset or a resource group would be driven by creation of a
container; at fork time, a task inherits its parent's container, and
hence its cpuset and/or resource groups.
At its most crude, this could be something like:
struct container {
#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
struct cpuset cs;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_RES_GROUPS
struct resource_group rg;
#endif
};
but at least it would be sharing some of the abstractions.
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
