From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] Memory Resources Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:31:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20090831163114.GA13896@us.ibm.com> References: <4A929F83.80207@free.fr> <20090826104312.97ff028f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4A952689.9020704@free.fr> <4A97A448.5050506@free.fr> <20090831134045.GD4837@us.ibm.com> <4A9BE134.5040804@free.fr> <20090831145423.GA8107@us.ibm.com> <4A9BE9A9.1080907@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A9BE9A9.1080907-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Linux Containers , kt-S89nZTSLPHGGdvJs77BJ7Q@public.gmane.org, Dietmar Maurer , lxc-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org): > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> The idea of Kamezawa-san to use a fuse proc is maybe a good idea in >>> this case. So we can address the entire /proc specific informations. >>> For >> >> I agree, nice idea. And hopefully pretty simple to whip up for the >> meminfo and cpuinfo files as an example. >> >> Are you thinking a fuse fs which takes a config file, holds an open >> ref to its ancestor /proc, and for each file looks in a config file to >> decide whether to show userspace: >> 1. nothing >> 2. the underlying file, unprocessed >> 3. a simple ascii file instead >> 4. the underlying file, processed? >> > > Yes, exactly :) > But, I am not sure how to retrieve the container context, I mean how to > pick and return the right information. > eg: in the container foo, when looking at /proc/meminfo, fuse-lxcfs > should process /cgroup/foo/(somefiles), how to know the request is > coming from 'foo' without doing multiple mount, one in each container ? Why without doing one mount per container? :) I figure the container can be responsible for the actual mounting, if it cares. The host/kernel should keep it *safe* for the container to use unfiltered /proc (, /sys, /cgroup, etc), but the container can be responsible for filtering it however much it feels necessary. (That fits with the 2006 kernel summit pseudo-decree that we are not trying to fake a container into thinking it is a real host, only make the container useful.) Are you worried about the extra memory overhead? -serge