On 10/30/06, Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Debated: > > - syscall vs configfs interface > > 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"! As you have seen from > our (beancounters) patches beancounters disapeared > as soon as the last reference was dropped.
Why is this an important feature for beancounters? All the other resource control approaches seem to prefer having userspace handle removing empty/dead groups/containers. > 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". Why is depending on a feature like configfs worse than depending on a feature of being able to extend the system call interface? > > - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets > > - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource > > groups/containers under a cpuset? > > - Should we have different groupings for different resources? > > This breaks the idea of groups isolation. That's fine - some people don't want total isolation. If we're looking for a solution that fits all the different requirements, then we need that flexibility. I agree that the default would probably want to be that the groupings be the same for all resource controllers / subsystems. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
