Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> I had been asking around on "what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt
> for vservers" and the answer I got (from Herbert) was "all tasks that are
> in the same pid namespace". From what you are saying above, it seems to
> be that there is no such "fundamental" unit. It can be a random mixture
> of tasks (taken across vservers) whose resource consumption needs to be
> controlled. Is that correct?
If I'm reading it right, yes.
If for vservers the fundamental unit of res mgmt is a vserver, that can
surely be done at a higher level than in the kernel.
Actually, these could be tied just by doing
mount -t container -o ns,cpuset /containers
So now any task in /containers/vserver1 or any subdirectory thereof
would have the same cpuset constraints as /containers. OTOH, you could
mount them separately
mount -t container -o ns /nsproxy
mount -t container -o cpuset /cpuset
and now you have the freedom to split tasks in the same vserver
(under /nsproxy/vserver1) into different cpusets.
-serge
> > > echo "cid 2" > /dev/cpu/prof/tasks
> >
> > Adding that feature sounds fine,
>
> Ok yes ..that can be a optional feature.
>
> --
> Regards,
> vatsa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
