On 10/30/06, Pavel Emelianov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Debated:
> - syscall vs configfs interface
1. One of the major configfs ideas is that lifetime of
the objects is completely driven by userspace.
Resource controller shouldn't live as long as user
want. It "may", but not "must"! As you have seen from
our (beancounters) patches beancounters disapeared
as soon as the last reference was dropped.
Why is this an important feature for beancounters? All the other
resource control approaches seem to prefer having userspace handle
removing empty/dead groups/containers.
2. Having configfs as the only interface doesn't alow
people having resource controll facility w/o configfs.
Resource controller must not depend on any "feature".
Why is depending on a feature like configfs worse than depending on a
feature of being able to extend the system call interface?
> - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets
> - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource
> groups/containers under a cpuset?
> - Should we have different groupings for different resources?
This breaks the idea of groups isolation.
That's fine - some people don't want total isolation. If we're looking
for a solution that fits all the different requirements, then we need
that flexibility. I agree that the default would probably want to be
that the groupings be the same for all resource controllers /
subsystems.
Paul
-
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]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
