OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7961 is a reply to message #7957] Wed, 01 November 2006 08:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Pavel Emelianov is currently offline  Pavel Emelianov
Messages: 1149
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
[snip]

>> 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".
>
> One flexibility configfs (and any fs-based interface) offers is, as Matt
> had pointed out sometime back, the ability to delage management of a
> sub-tree to a particular user (without requiring root permission).
>
> For ex:
>
> /
> |
> -----------------
> | |
> vatsa (70%) linux (20%)
> |
> ----------------------------------
> | | |
> browser (10%) compile (50%) editor (10%)
>
> In this, group 'vatsa' has been alloted 70% share of cpu. Also user
> 'vatsa' has been given permissions to manage this share as he wants. If
> the cpu controller supports hierarchy, user 'vatsa' can create further
> sub-groups (browser, compile ..etc) -without- requiring root access.

I can do the same using bcctl tool and sudo :)

> Also it is convenient to manipulate resource hierarchy/parameters thr a
> shell-script if it is fs-based.
>
>> 3. Configfs may be easily implemented later as an additional
>> interface. I propose the following solution:
>
> Ideally we should have one interface - either syscall or configfs - and
> not both.

Agree.

> Assuming your requirement of auto-deleting objects in configfs can be
> met thr' something similar to cpuset's notify_on_release, what other
> killer problem do you think configfs will pose?
>
>
>>> - Should we have different groupings for different resources?
>> This breaks the idea of groups isolation.
>
> Sorry dont get you here. Are you saying we should support different
> grouping for different controllers?

Not me, but other people in this thread.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Next Topic: microcode_ctl-1.15.tar.gz incorporates broken microcode?
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Tue Apr 21 22:59:17 GMT 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.14285 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers