[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
    On 10/30/06, Pavel Emelianov <> 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 /

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-10-30 19:05    [W:0.022 / U:4.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site