linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <454619B9.8030705@openvz.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:26:49 +0300
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, vatsa@...ibm.com,
	dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/