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

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

On 11/7/06, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
> > One drawback to this that I can see is the following:
> >
> > - suppose you mount a containerfs with controllers cpuset and cpu, and
> > create some nodes, and then unmount it, what happens? do the resource
> > nodes stick around still?
>
> Sorry - I let interfaces get confused with objects and operations.
>
> Let me back up a step.  I think I have beat on your proposal enough
> to translate it into the more abstract terms that I prefer using when
> detemining objects, operations and semantics.
>
> It goes like this ... grab a cup of coffee.

That's pretty much what I was envisioning, except for the fact that I
was trying to fit the controller/container bindings into the same
mount/umount interface. I still think that might be possible with
judicious use of mount options, but if not we should probably just use
configfs or something like that as a binding API.

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/