Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751441AbWHRRwx (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751443AbWHRRwx (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:55026 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751441AbWHRRww (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=crP3WjFxPs2GegMlH6HNOfu/VaxZn/1Jhs48HAUfeyQkePhu8mcTUzSVt5kfFPvVP +4kO0OTN6Du5JTda0zxag== Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Pavel Emelianov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Rik van Riel , hugh@veritas.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <44E5A12E.6020900@sw.ru> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33BB6.3050504@sw.ru> <1155751868.22595.65.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E458C4.9030902@sw.ru> <1155833753.14617.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E5A12E.6020900@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:51:10 -0700 Message-Id: <1155923470.23242.18.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1599 Lines: 40 On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:14 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>2. if you think a bit more about it, adding UB parameters doesn't > >> require user space changes as well. > >>3. it is possible to add any kind of interface for UBC. but do you like the idea > >> to grep 200(containers)x20(parameters) files for getting current usages? > > > > > > How are you doing it currently and how much more efficient it is in > > comparison to configfs? > currently it is done with a single file read. > you can grep it, sum up resources or do what ever you want from bash. > what is important! you can check whether container hits its limits > with a single command, while with configs you would have to look through > 20 files... > I think configfs provides all the required functionality that you listed. You can define the attributes in a such a away that it prints all the information that you need in one single read operation (I think the limit is PAGE_SIZE....which is kind of sad). I've just started playing with configfs for a container implementation that I'm trying to get a better idea of details. > IMHO it is convinient to have a text file representing the whole information state > and system call for applications. > There should be an easy interface for shell to be able to do the needful as well, for example, set the limits. -rohit - 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/