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

[Pavel Emelianov]

[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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/