lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-02 08:43    [W:0.190 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site