On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 12:55 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:On 12/09/2011 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Namespaces seem to be about limiting visibility, cgroups about
controlling resources.
The two things are hopelessly disjoint atm, but I believe someone was
looking at this mess.
I did take a look at this (if anyone else was, I'd like to know so we
can share some ideas), but I am not convinced we should do anything to
join them anymore. We virtualization people are to the best of my
knowledge the only ones doing namespaces. Cgroups, OTOH, got a lot bigger.
What I am mostly concerned about now, is how consistent they will be.
/proc always being always global indeed does make sense, but my question
still stands: if you live in a resource-controlled world, why should you
even see resources you will never own ?
Since without namespaces you can still see the rest of the world. So it
makes sense to me to still see all resources too.
Also, proportional controllers might not see a consistent slice of the
resource, making the stats rather awkward to interpret.
Furthermore, not everybody might care about these statistics at all and
I know pjt objected to being subjected to the extra accounting (pjt do
speak up etc..).
If it is not co-mounted, we draw the global value. If you don't mount
it, I someone does not mount it, I can assure you he doesn't care about
it. We for sure will.
Anyway, looking at the rest of the emails in this thread the current
proposal is a cgroup mount option that indicates if you want these
per-cgroup stats or not, right?