![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:36:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:37:53 +0530 > > > Resource management has been talked about quite extensively in the > > past, more recently in the context of containers. The basic requirement > > here is to provide isolation between *groups* of task wrt their use > > of various resources like CPU, Memory, I/O bandwidth, open file-descriptors etc. > > > > Different maintainers have however expressed different opinions over the need to > > complicate the kernel to meet this need, especially since it involves core > > kernel code like the resource schedulers. > > > > A BoF was hence held at OLS this year to come to a consensus on the minimum > > requirements of a resource management solution for Linux kernel. Some notes > > taken at the BoF are posted here: > > > > http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0607.3/0896.html > > > > An important consensus point of the BoF seemed to be "focus on real > > controllers more, preferably memory first, using some simple interface > > and task grouping mechanism". > > ug, I didn't know this. Had I been there (sorry) I'd have disagreed with > this whole strategy. Ah, wish you were there :) > I thought the most recently posted CKRM core was a fine piece of code. It > provides the machinery for grouping tasks together and the machinery for > establishing and viewing those groupings via configfs, and other such > common functionality. My 20-minute impression was that this code was an > easy merge and it was just awaiting some useful controllers to come along. > > And now we've dumped the good infrastructure and instead we've contentrated > on the controller, wired up via some imaginative ab^H^Hreuse of the cpuset > layer. FWIW, this controller was originally written for f-series. It should be trivial to put it back there. So really, f-series isn't gone anywhere. If you want to merge it, I am sure it can be re-submitted. > I wonder how many of the consensus-makers were familiar with the > contemporary CKRM core? I think what would be nice is a clear strategy on whether we need to work out the infrastructure or the controllers first. One of the strongest points raised in the BoF was - forget the infrastructure for now, get some mergable controllers developed. If you want to stick to f-series infrastructure and want to see some consensus controllers evolve on top of it, that can be done too. Thanks Dipankar - 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: 2006-08-04 08:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||