On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:37:38PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > Sure it works. You have one per resource group. In
> > resource_group_make_object(), you sysfs_mkdir() the sysfs file. There
> That's the easy part. Next we need to make the pid attribute whenever a
> new task is created. And delete it when the task dies. And move it
> around whenever it changes groups. Is there rename() support in /sys? If
> not, would changes to allow rename() be acceptable (I'm worried it would
> impact alot of assumptions made in the existing code)?
No, you don't create a pid attribute per task. The sysfs file
is literally your large attribute. So, instead of echoing a new pid to
"/sys/kernel/config/ckrm/group1/pids", you echo to
"/sys/ckrm/group1/pids". To display them all, you just cat
"/sys/ckrm/group1/pids". It's exactly like the file you want in
configfs, just located in a place where it is allowed.
> Consider that having two very similar (but not symlinked!) trees in
> both /sys/ ... /res_group and /sys/kernel/config/res_group could be
> rather confusing to userspace programmers and users alike.
Not really. It's not identical (tons of attributes live in the
configfs part but not the sysfs part), and it has a clear deliniation of
what each does.
> It would be strange because when you rmdir a group
> in /sys/kernel/config/res_group... a directory in /sys would also
> disappear. Yet you can't mkdir or rmdir the /sys dirs. And to edit the
This is no different than tons of sysfs and procfs functionality
> Hmm, that suggests a good point. While some one *can* do that or:
> ATTR=( $(cat /sys/kernel/config/ckrm/myresource/attr) )
> the space available for environment variables is limited. So attempting
> to store a large (What's "large"?) attribute in an environment variable
> is a potentially buggy practice. This is a significant problem affecting
> large attributes in general.
If you can't do it in sh, it's pretty much out of scope. This
is a taste rule I use, because like to shell program. Sure, not the end
of the world (not a hard rule, I guess), but worth thinking about.
> There are two parts to the complexity: code complexity and the number
> of userspace pieces to deal with. I think that in both of these
> categories the OVPA approach is more complex. Here's how I see it:
By your definition, sysfs, configfs, and other fs-style control
mechanisms are too complex. We should all just be using ioctl() so that
coders and users have only one namespace :-)
> > You're effectively suggesting that a specific attribute type of
> > "repeated value of type X". No mixed types, no exploded structures,
> > just a "list of this attr" sort of thing. This does fit my personal
> > requirement of avoiding a generic, abusable system.
How do you implement it? Full on seq_file with restrictions
(ops->start,stop,next,show)? Some sort of array (how do I placehold
where the last read(2) was)? Some sort of linked list (again with the
placeholding and locking)? Anything short of seq_file+restrictions
would be perhaps binding that traversal, no?
"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I
only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if
the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
- Buckminster Fuller
Principal Software Developer
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 506-8127
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]