Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:39:16 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices |
| |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:43:20AM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote: > > 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 > basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front. > The rest will follow, much easier.
Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining.
However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad.
One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports hierarchy but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the initial versions. Would that work?
-- Regards, vatsa - 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/
| |