Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers

[Paul Menage]

On 2/12/07, Sam Vilain <sam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ask yourself this - what do you need the container structure for so
> badly, that virtualising the individual resources does not provide for?

Primarily, that otherwise every module that wants to affect/monitor
behaviour of a group of associated processes has to implement its own
process grouping abstraction.

As an example, the CPU accounting patch that in included in my patch
set as an illustration of a simple resource monitoring module is just
250 lines, almost entirely in one file; if it also had to handle
associating tasks together into groups and presenting a filesystem
interface to the user it would be far larger and would have a much
bigger footprint on the kernel.

> From the point of view of the virtual server containers, the advantage
is that you're integrated with a standard filesystem interface for
determining group membership. It does become simpler to combine
virtual servers and resource controllers, although I grant you that
you could juggle that from userspace without the additional kernel
support.

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/