![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 ... ;). Agree. > > 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-30 15:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||