Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161381AbWJaA0X (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:26:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751736AbWJaA0X (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:26:23 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:21187 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbWJaA0V (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:26:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices From: Matt Helsley To: Pavel Emelianov Cc: Paul Jackson , vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, menage@google.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <454619B9.8030705@openvz.org> References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <45460743.8000501@openvz.org> <20061030062332.856dcc32.pj@sgi.com> <45460E69.7070505@openvz.org> <20061030071838.7988d3e1.pj@sgi.com> <454619B9.8030705@openvz.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:26:17 -0800 Message-Id: <1162254377.2715.169.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1781 Lines: 48 On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 18:26 +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > 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? Yes. The controller should stay in memory until userspace decides that control of the resource is no longer desired. Though not all controllers should be removable since that may impose unreasonable restrictions on what useful/performant controllers can be implemented. That doesn't mean that the controller couldn't reclaim memory it uses when it's no longer needed. Cheers, -Matt Helsley - 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/