[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
    Paul Menage wrote:
    > On 10/31/06, Pavel Emelianov <> 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

    Hmm... Sounds good. I'll think over this.

    > 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.

    This sounds more reasonable than using configfs for me.

    > Paul

    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: 2006-11-01 09:05    [W:0.021 / U:3.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site