Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:40:43 -0800 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices |
| |
On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote: > Paul Menage wrote: > > > The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register > > any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it > > shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits. > > If the framework was able to handle arbitrary control parameters, that > would certainly be interesting. > > Presumably there would be some way for the controllers to be called from > the framework to validate those parameters?
The approach that I had in mind was that each controller could register what ever control files it wanted, which would appear in the filesystem directories for each container; reads and writes on those files would invoke handlers in the controller. The framework wouldn't care about the semantics of those control files. See the containers patch that I posted last month for some examples of this.
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/
| |