lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 02 Nov 2006 11:42:41 +0300
FromPavel Emelianov <>
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:01:31AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> Sorry dont get you here. Are you saying we should support different
>>> grouping for different controllers?
>> Not me, but other people in this thread.
> 
> Hmm ..I thought OpenVz folks were interested in having different
> groupings for different resources i.e grouping for CPU should be
> independent of the grouping for memory.
> 
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/18/98
> 
> Isnt that true?

That's true. We don't mind having different groupings for
different resources. But what I was sying in this thread is
"I didn't *propose* this thing, I just *agreed* that this
might be usefull for someone."
So if we're going to have different groupings for different
resources what's the use of "container" grouping all "controllers"
together? I see this situation like each task_struct carries
pointers to kmemsize controller, pivate pages controller,
physical pages controller, CPU time controller, disk bandwidth
controller, etc. Right? Or did I miss something?
-
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: 2006-11-02 09:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2008