Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpucontroller

[Kirill Korotaev]

> > I think the risk is that OpenVZ has all the controls and resource
> > managers we need, while CKRM is still more research-ish. I find the
> > OpenVZ code much clearer, cleaner and complete at the moment, although
> > also much more conservative in its approach to solving problems.
>
>
> I think it would be nice to compare first the features provided by ckrm and 
> openvz at some point and agree upon the minimum common features we need to have 
> as we go forward. For instance I think Openvz assumes that tasks do
> not need to move between containers (task-groups), whereas ckrm provides this
> flexibility for workload management. This may have some effect on the 
> controller/interface design, no?
OpenVZ assumes that tasks can't move between task-groups for a single reason:
user shouldn't be able to escape from the container.
But this have no implication on the design/implementation.

BTW, do you see any practical use cases for tasks jumping between resource-containers?

Kirill

-
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/