Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:58:42 +0300 | From | Pavel Emelianov <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices |
| |
Paul Menage wrote: > 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
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 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/
| |