Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

[Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 12:57 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> > > };
> >
> > Won't it restrict the user to choose one of these, and not both.
> 
> Not necessarily - you could have both compiled in, and each would only
> worry about the resource management that they cared about - e.g. you
> could use the memory node isolation portion of cpusets (in conjunction
> with fake numa nodes/zones) for memory containment, but give every
> cpuset access to all CPUs and control CPU usage via the resource
> groups CPU controller.
> 
> The generic code would take care of details like container
> creation/destruction (with appropriate callbacks into cpuset and/or
> res_group code, tracking task membership of containers, etc.

What I am wondering is that whether the tight coupling of rg and cpuset
(into a container data structure) is ok.

> 
> Paul
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------