From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752577AbXCMRvx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:51:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752575AbXCMRvx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:51:53 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:44244 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752577AbXCMRvw (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:51:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:28:20 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: menage@google.com, xemul@sw.ru, dev@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, sam@vilain.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, winget@google.com, serue@us.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Summary of resource management discussion Message-ID: <20070313175820.GA21825@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070312124226.GD17151@in.ibm.com> <20070313162459.GQ8755@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070313162459.GQ8755@MAIL.13thfloor.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:24:59PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > what about identifying different resource categories and > handling them according to the typical usage pattern? > > like the following: > > - cpu and scheduler related accounting/limits > - memory related accounting/limits > - network related accounting/limits > - generic/file system related accounting/limits > > I don't worry too much about having the generic/file stuff > attached to the nsproxy, but the cpu/sched stuff might be > better off being directly reachable from the task I think we should experiment with both combinations (a direct pointer to cpu_limit structure from task_struct and an indirect pointer), get some numbers and then decide. Or do you have results already with respect to that? > > 3. How are cpusets related to vserver/containers? > > > > Should it be possible to, lets say, create exclusive cpusets and > > attach containers to different cpusets? > > that is what Linux-VServer does atm, i.e. you can put > an entire guest into a specific cpu set Interesting. What abt /dev/cpuset view? Is that same for all containers or do you restrict that view to the containers cpuset only? -- Regards, vatsa