Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem

[Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>]

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>> I tried something similar, I added an activated field, which is set
>> to true when the ->create() callback is invoked. That did not help
>> either, the machine still panic'ed.
> 
> I think that marking it active when create() is called may be too soon.
> 
> Is this with my unchanged cpuacct subsystem, or with the version that
> you've extended to track load over defined periods? I don't see it
> when I test under VMware (with two processors in the VM), but I
> suspect that's not going to be quite as parallel as a real SMP system.

This is with the unchanged cpuacct subsystem. Ok, so the container
system needs to mark active internally then.

> 
>> I see the need for it, but I wonder if we should start with that
>> right away. I understand that people might want to group cpusets
>> differently from their grouping of let's say the cpu resource
>> manager. I would still prefer to start with one hierarchy and then
>> move to multiple hierarchies. I am concerned that adding complexity
>> upfront might turn off people from using the infrastructure.
> 
> That's what I had originally and people objected to the lack of flexibility :-)
> 
> The presence or absence of multiple hierarchies is pretty much exposed
> to userspace, and presenting the right interface to userspace is a
> fairly important thing to get right from the start.
> 

I understand that the features are exported to userspace. But from
the userspace POV only the mount options change - right?


> Paul
> 

-- 

	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs