Containers/UBC discussion< Containers
Here we put design features that everyone agree
- resources are:
- kernel memory
- total length of unreclaimable mappings
- physical pages
- each resource group is independent from each other
- unified interface for mem, cpu, disk I/O
- It is still not clear whether we need unified interface.
- Having one syscall for setting values for different resources seems OK if leaving alone the meaning of the "value" notion.
- memory reclamation
- Pending to be implemented on top of BC.
- moving tasks across beancounters
- Required changes:
- saving bc on vma instead of mm
- can two threads in a process be in different BC contexts?
- changing mm->bc in set_bc_id().
- what is implied by the term "guarantee"
- container will be able to touch that number of pages - I think this one (Hansendc)
- container will be able to map that number of pages
- container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
- anything else
- make it possible to charge full user page to its allocator and keep it charged till unmapped
- Consider creating resource groups via the use of aggregation (aggregated BC)
Top Level Design - thoughts on how to accomplish the goal
- Create a BC per thread group
- Associate a group of BC's with an aggregated BC (we can call this a BC resource group)
- Enable migration of tasks by charging and un-charging aggregated BC when a BC moves across from one aggregated BC to another
- Change set_bcid() to create aggregated BC's instead of BC's
- Is it possible to merge vm_acct_memory() with the accounting information in beancounters?