[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45470AB3.4050107@openvz.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:34:59 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
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, dipankar@...ibm.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
[snip]
> 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.
>
I've already answered Paul Menage about this. Shortly:
... I agree that some users may want to create some
kind of "persistent" beancounters, but this must not be
the only way to control them...
... I think that we may have something [like this] - a flag
BC_PERSISTENT to keep beancounters with zero refcounter in
memory to reuse them...
... I have nothing against using configfs as additional,
optional interface, but I do object using it as the only
window inside BC world...
Please, refer to my full reply for comments.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists