[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:0.022 / U:9.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site