[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Paul Jackson wrote:
> vatsa wrote:
>> C. Paul Menage's container patches
>> Provides a generic heirarchial ...
>> Consensus/Debated Points
>> ------------------------
>> Consensus:
>> ...
>> - Dont support heirarchy for now
> Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;).


> I for one would recommend getting the hierarchy right from the
> beginning.
> Though I can appreciate that others were trying to "keep it simple"
> and postpone dealing with such complications. I don't agree.
> Such stuff as this deeply affects all that sits on it. Get the

I can share our experience with it.
Hierarchy support over beancounters was done in one patch.
This patch altered only three places - charge/uncharge routines,
beancounter creation/destruction code and BC's /proc entry.
All the rest code was not modified.

My point is that a good infrastrucure doesn't care wether
or not beancounter (group controller) has a parent.

> basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front.
> The rest will follow, much easier.
> Good review of the choices - thanks.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-30 15:27    [W:0.313 / U:2.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site