lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
    FromMatt Helsley <>
    DateThu, 02 Nov 2006 03:26:47 -0800
    On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 12:08 +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
    > [snip]
    > 
    > > I think that having a "tasks" file and a "threads" file in each
    > > container directory would be a clean way to handle it:
    > > 
    > > "tasks" : read/write complete process members
    > > "threads" : read/write individual thread members
    > 
    > I've just thought of it.
    > 
    > Beancounter may have more than 409 tasks, while configfs
    > doesn't allow attributes to store more than PAGE_SIZE bytes
    > on read. So how would you fill so many tasks in one page?
    
    	To be clear that's a limitation of configfs as an interface. In the
    Resource Groups code, for example, there is no hard limitation on length
    of the underlying list. This is why we're talking about a filesystem
    interface and not necessarily a configfs interface.
    
    > I like the idea of writing pids/tids to these files, but
    > printing them back is not that easy.
    
    	That depends on how you do it. For instance, if you don't have an
    explicit list of tasks in the group (rough cost: 1 list head per task)
    then yes, it could be difficult.
    
    Cheers,
    	-Matt Helsley
    
    -
    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 12:29    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008