Re: boot cgroup questions

[Max Krasnyanskiy]

Sorry for disappearing on you guys. I'm working on releasing the user-space 
framework and engine that uses cpu isolation for hard-RT. Once that's done I'm 
going to resurrect these efforts. In the mean time let me reply to your last 
comments.

Paul Jackson wrote:
> > How about we add support for sym links to the cgroup fs ?
>
> Still pollutes the primary cpuset name space ... you have all
> the directories X, X/A, and X/B as well as the symlinks A and B.
>
> Symlinks allow for one path that needs to be 'aliased' to another,
> but they are a one-way map; without an exhaustive search of the
> potential namespace, one can't invert them, or determine if they
> can't be inverted.
>
> Tools have to constantly make heuristic decisions whether to
> default to dereferencing the symlink, or not, and often have to
> provide alternatives for the non-default choice.
>
> They are a pain in the backside even if designed in and expected
> up front.
>
> If added as critical structure after the fact, something breaks,
> pretty much for sure.
>
> For one minor example, code I've probably buried someplace that
> does "find /dev/cpuset -type d" to find all cpusets would break.
>
> Or the one-line /sbin/cpuset_release_agent script:
> 	rmdir /dev/cpuset/$1
> is broken -- fails to clean-up associated symlinks, and can't
> avoid race conditions if it tries to add code to do that.
>
> > Crazy idea.
>
> Agreed ;)

Got it. Symlinks are out :)

Max


--
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/