![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 10/31/06, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote: > > That's functionality user may want. I agree that some users > may want to create some kind of "persistent" beancounters, but > this must not be the only way to control them. I like the way > TUN devices are done. Each has TUN_PERSIST flag controlling > whether or not to destroy device right on closing. I think that > we may have something similar - a flag BC_PERSISTENT to keep > beancounters with zero refcounter in memory to reuse them. How about the cpusets approach, where once a cpuset has no children and no processes, a usermode helper can be executed - this could immediately remove the container/bean-counter if that's what the user wants. My generic containers patch copies this from cpusets. > > Moreover, I hope you agree that beancounters can't be made as > module. If so user will have to built-in configfs, and thus > CONFIG_CONFIGFS_FS essentially becomes "bool", not a "tristate". How about a small custom filesystem as part of the containers support, then? I'm not wedded to using configfs itself, but I do think that a filesystem interface is much more debuggable and extensible than a system call interface, and the simple filesystem is only a couple of hundred lines. 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: 2006-10-31 15:37 [W:0.958 / U:0.170 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||