Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751894AbWKBHlA (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 02:41:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752707AbWKBHlA (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 02:41:00 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:5017 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbWKBHk7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 02:40:59 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=L0OrE2w7YJGavJ9cHAVJRx1RgrE+3n6NMarCbkSKY5OSGf5rFyUTbSWjFWzgjfwz4 SKCCDmbRoo4seVZh1osmA== Message-ID: <6599ad830611012340s45323480w63c1d131eb75ae19@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:40:43 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Chris Friesen" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <454965E5.7090005@nortel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610300251w1f4e0a70ka1d64b15d8da2b77@mail.gmail.com> <20061101173356.GA18182@in.ibm.com> <45490F0D.7000804@nortel.com> <6599ad830611011548h4c0273c0xc5a653ea8726a692@mail.gmail.com> <454965E5.7090005@nortel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1171 Lines: 26 On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen wrote: > Paul Menage wrote: > > > The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register > > any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it > > shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits. > > If the framework was able to handle arbitrary control parameters, that > would certainly be interesting. > > Presumably there would be some way for the controllers to be called from > the framework to validate those parameters? The approach that I had in mind was that each controller could register what ever control files it wanted, which would appear in the filesystem directories for each container; reads and writes on those files would invoke handlers in the controller. The framework wouldn't care about the semantics of those control files. See the containers patch that I posted last month for some examples of this. Paul - 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/