On 4/5/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
Yes, that part is definitely a good idea, since it removes one of the
potential performance complaints that people have compared to
hard-coded pointers in a structure.
I've reworked my patches to require subsystems to be declared at compile time.
OK, sorry if I came across as possessive :-) There are definitely some
great ideas in your patches, some of which I've incorporated in my
patches as you'll see when I send them out later this afternoon
As a simple job tracking mechanism, without any other implications.
Root would be able to move tasks around between containers, as normal.
Not cleanly. (Multiple jobs with the same user, session ids can be
changed by the user). Currently in the job-control system I'm working
on here, I was tagging any processes introduced in a job with a
job-unique extra gid, so we could identify which job a process was in
by looking at its group list. But that's a bit ugly.
In a more modern kernel we can just use cpusets without bothering to
make distinctions between the memory and cpus in different cpusets,
but it seems ugly to have to use a more heavyweight solution than you
really need.
In practice, this would be more of a toy/example, since anyone doing
job control probably is interested in at least some rudimentary kind
of resource tracking/control.
Paul
-
