Paul, >>I suspect we can make cpusets also work >>on top of this very easily. > > > I'm skeptical, and kinda worried. > > ... can you show me the code that does this? don't worry. we are not planning to commit any code breaking cpusets... I will be the first one against it.
> Namespaces are not the same thing as actual resources > (memory, cpu cycles, ...). Namespaces are fluid mappings; > Resources are scarce commodities. hm... interesing comparison. as for me, I can't see much difference between virtualization namespaces and resource namespaces. Both have some impact on what the task in the namespace can do and what can't. The only difference is that virtualization namespaces usually also make one user to be invisible to another. That's the only difference imho. Also if you take a look at IPC namespace you'll note that IPC can also limit IPC resources in question. So it is kinda of virtualization + resource namespace. > I'm wagering you'll break either the semantics, and/or the > performance, of cpusets doing this. I like Paul's containers patch. It looks good and pretty well. After some of the context issues are resolved it's fine. Maybe it is even the best way of doing things. Thanks, Kirill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
