Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices | From | Matt Helsley <> | Date | Thu, 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/
| |