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

[Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>]

Paul M wrote:
> Is it possible to dynamically extend the /proc/<pid>/ directory?

Not that I know of -- sounds like a nice idea for a patch.

> We're currently planning on using cpusets for the memory node
> isolation properties, but we have a whole bunch of other resource
> controllers that we'd like to be able to hang off the same
> infrastructure, so I don't think the need is that limited.

So long as you can update the code in your user space stack that
knows about this, then you should have nothing stopping you.

I've got a major (albeit not well publicized) open source user space
C library for working with cpusets which I will have to fix up.

> The naming is already in my patch. You can tell from the top-level
> directory which containers are registered, since each one has an
> xxx_enabled file to control whether it's in use;

But there are other *_enabled per-cpuset flags, not naming controllers,
so that is not a robust way to list container types.

Right now, I'm rather fond of the /proc/containers (or should it
be /proc/controllers?) idea.  Though since I don't time to code
the patch today, I'll have to shut up.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401