Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:07:05 -0800 | | From | "Paul Menage" <> | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices |
| |
On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should > design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for it > I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In addition to > the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the paradigm presented to > the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users options they will never > use.
The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that requires a hierarchy.
Paul - 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/
|  |