![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:53 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 14:36 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: <snip> > > 2. as was discussed with a number of people on summit we agreed that > > it maybe more flexible to not merge all resource types into one set. > > CPU scheduler is usefull by itself w/o memory management. > > the same for disk I/O bandwidht which is controlled in CFQ by > > a separate system call. > > > > it is also more logical to have them separate since they > > operate in different terms. For example, for CPU it is > > shares which are relative units, while for memory it is > > absolute units in bytes. > > We don't have to tie the units with the number. We can leave it to be > sorted out between the user and the controller writer. Yes. The user specifies a ratio of the parent group's resources and the controller maps that unitless number into appropriate units for the resource. > Current implementation of resource groups does that. IMHO this also better facilitates hotplug addition/removal of resources, arbitrary levels of groups, and containers. <snip> Cheers, -Matt Helsley - 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: 2006-08-19 01:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||