Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

Paul Menage
2007-03-08T00:42:26Z

On 3/7/07, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
> >> In the namespace world when we say container we mean roughly at the level
> >> of nsproxy and container_group.
> >>
> > So you're saying that a task can only be in a single system-wide container.
> >
>
> Nope, we didn't make the mistake of nailing down what a "container" was
> too far before it is implemented. We talked before about
> containers-within-containers because, inevitably if you provide a
> feature you'll end up having to deal with virtualising systems that in
> turn use that feature.

Sure, my aproach allows containers hierarchically as children of other
containers too.

>
> > My patch provides multiple potentially-independent ways of dividing up
> > the tasks on the system - if the "container" is the set of all
> > divisions that the process is in, what's an appropriate term for the
> > sub-units?
> >
>
> namespace, since 2.4.x
>
> > That assumes the viewpoint that your terminology is "correct" and
> > other people's needs "fixing". :-)
> >
>
> Absolutely. Please respect the semantics established so far; changing
> them adds nothing at the cost of much confusion.

But "namespace" has well-established historical semantics too - a way
of changing the mappings of local names to global objects. This
doesn't describe things liek resource controllers, cpusets, resource
monitoring, etc.

Trying to extend the well-known term namespace to refer to things that
aren't namespaces isn't a useful approach, IMO.

Paul