Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:01:31AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote: >>> Sorry dont get you here. Are you saying we should support different >>> grouping for different controllers? >> Not me, but other people in this thread. > > Hmm ..I thought OpenVz folks were interested in having different > groupings for different resources i.e grouping for CPU should be > independent of the grouping for memory. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/18/98 > > Isnt that true?
That's true. We don't mind having different groupings for different resources. But what I was sying in this thread is "I didn't *propose* this thing, I just *agreed* that this might be usefull for someone." 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
