Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

["Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>]

On 10/30/06, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org> 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 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/