| Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7918 is a reply to message #7915] |
Mon, 30 October 2006 15:26   |
Pavel Emelianov
Messages: 1149
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Pavel wrote:
>>>> 3. Configfs may be easily implemented later as an additional
>>>> interface. I propose the following solution:
>>>> ...
>> Resource controller has nothing common with confgifs.
>> That's the same as if we make netfilter depend on procfs.
>
> Well ... if you used configfs as an interface to resource
> controllers, as you said was easily done, then they would
> have something to do with each other, right ;)?
Right. We'll create a dependency that is not needed.
> Choose the right data structure for the job, and then reuse
> what fits for that choice.
>
> Neither avoid nor encouraging code reuse is the key question.
>
> What's the best fit, long term, for the style of kernel-user
> API, for this use? That's the key question.
I agree, but you've cut some importaint questions away,
so I ask them again:
> 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?
This is importaint to solve now - wether we want or not to
keep "empty" beancounters in memory. If we do not then configfs
usage is not acceptible.
> The same can be said about system calls interface, isn't it?
I haven't seen any objections against system calls yet.
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
