![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 10/30/06, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote: > > Debated: > > - syscall vs configfs interface > > 1. One of the major configfs ideas is that lifetime of > the objects is completely driven by userspace. > Resource controller shouldn't live as long as user > want. It "may", but not "must"! As you have seen from > our (beancounters) patches beancounters disapeared > as soon as the last reference was dropped. Why is this an important feature for beancounters? All the other resource control approaches seem to prefer having userspace handle removing empty/dead groups/containers. > 2. Having configfs as the only interface doesn't alow > people having resource controll facility w/o configfs. > Resource controller must not depend on any "feature". Why is depending on a feature like configfs worse than depending on a feature of being able to extend the system call interface? > > - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets > > - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource > > groups/containers under a cpuset? > > - Should we have different groupings for different resources? > > This breaks the idea of groups isolation. That's fine - some people don't want total isolation. If we're looking for a solution that fits all the different requirements, then we need that flexibility. I agree that the default would probably want to be that the groupings be the same for all resource controllers / subsystems. Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-30 19:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||