lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 30 Oct 2006 10:07:05 -0800
From"Paul Menage" <>
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-30 19:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2010