| Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7912 is a reply to message #7909] |
Mon, 30 October 2006 14:38   |
Pavel Emelianov
Messages: 1149
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Pavel wrote:
>> 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"!
>
> I had trouble understanding what you are saying here.
>
> What does the phrase "live as long as user want" mean?
What if if user creates a controller (configfs directory)
and doesn't remove it at all. Should controller stay in memory
even if nobody uses it?
>
>
>> 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".
>>
>> 3. Configfs may be easily implemented later as an additional
>> interface. I propose the following solution:
>> - First we make an interface via any common kernel
>> facility (syscall, ioctl, etc);
>> - Later we may extend this with configfs. This will
>> alow one to have configfs interface build as a module.
>
> So you would add bloat to the kernel, with two interfaces
> to the same facility, because you don't want the resource
> controller to depend on configfs.
>
> I am familiar with what is wrong with kernel bloat.
>
> Can you explain to me what is wrong with having resource
> groups depend on configfs? Is there something wrong with
Resource controller has nothing common with confgifs.
That's the same as if we make netfilter depend on procfs.
> configfs that would be a significant problem for some systems
> needing resource groups?
Why do we need to make some dependency if we can avoid it?
> It is better where possible, I would think, to reuse common
> infrastructure and minimize redundancy. If there is something
> wrong with configfs that makes this a problem, perhaps we
> should fix that.
The same can be said about system calls interface, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
