[Devel] Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[Pavel Emelianov]

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.