[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:0.237 / U:8.660 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site