[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162466807.12419.194.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:26:47 -0800
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org,
sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 12:08 +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I think that having a "tasks" file and a "threads" file in each
> > container directory would be a clean way to handle it:
> >
> > "tasks" : read/write complete process members
> > "threads" : read/write individual thread members
>
> I've just thought of it.
>
> Beancounter may have more than 409 tasks, while configfs
> doesn't allow attributes to store more than PAGE_SIZE bytes
> on read. So how would you fill so many tasks in one page?
To be clear that's a limitation of configfs as an interface. In the
Resource Groups code, for example, there is no hard limitation on length
of the underlying list. This is why we're talking about a filesystem
interface and not necessarily a configfs interface.
> I like the idea of writing pids/tids to these files, but
> printing them back is not that easy.
That depends on how you do it. For instance, if you don't have an
explicit list of tasks in the group (rough cost: 1 list head per task)
then yes, it could be difficult.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-
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