Paul M wrote:
> Is it possible to dynamically extend the /proc/<pid>/ directory?
Not that I know of -- sounds like a nice idea for a patch.
> We're currently planning on using cpusets for the memory node
> isolation properties, but we have a whole bunch of other resource
> controllers that we'd like to be able to hang off the same
> infrastructure, so I don't think the need is that limited.
So long as you can update the code in your user space stack that
knows about this, then you should have nothing stopping you.
I've got a major (albeit not well publicized) open source user space
C library for working with cpusets which I will have to fix up.
> The naming is already in my patch. You can tell from the top-level
> directory which containers are registered, since each one has an
> xxx_enabled file to control whether it's in use;
But there are other *_enabled per-cpuset flags, not naming controllers,
so that is not a robust way to list container types.
Right now, I'm rather fond of the /proc/containers (or should it
be /proc/controllers?) idea. Though since I don't time to code
the patch today, I'll have to shut up.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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]
