Re: [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers

[Paul Jackson]

> Would it then make sense to just
> default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's
> value?

Which could well be empty, which in turn puts one back in the position
of dealing with a newborn cpuset that is empty (of cpus or of memory),
or else it introduces a new and odd constraint on when cpusets can be
created (only when there are non-exclusive cpus and mems available.)

> An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets
> could not be applied to namespaces...

I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand why you couldn't
do it in two steps - make the container, and then populate it with
resources.

But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of
option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/