Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 May 2004 14:29:41 -0300 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Revised CKRM release |
| |
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:41:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The basic concepts and motivation of CKRM remain the same as described > > in the overview at http://ckrm.sf.net. Privileged users can define > > classes consisting of groups of kernel objects (currently tasks and > > sockets) and specify shares for these classes. Resource controllers, > > which are independent of each other, can regulate and monitor the > > resources consumed by classes e.g the CPU controller will control the > > CPU time received by a class etc. Optional classification engines, > > implemented as kernel modules, can assist in the automatic > > classification of the kernel objects (tasks/sockets currently) into > > classes. > > I'd still love to see practical problems this thing is solving. It's > a few thousand lines of code, not written to linux style guidelines, > sometimes particularly obsfucated with callbacks all over the place. > > I'd hate to see this in the kernel unless there's a very strong need > for it and no way to solve it at a nicer layer of abstraction, e.g. > userland virtual machines ala uml/umlinux.
I have been reading CKRM docs this week and I think something which provides the same functionality is required for v2.7.
I haven't read the code yet, though. It probably should be converted to "linux style" and simplified whenever possible.
Right now our resource-limit infrastructure is very basic and limited. CKRM provides advanced/fine grained resource management. - 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/
| |