[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.13-rc3-mm1 (ckrm)

> > What, in your opinion, makes it "obviously unmergeable"?

Controlling resource assignment, I think that concept is good.
But the design is another matter that it seems somewhat overkilled
with the current CKRM.

> I suspect that the main problem is that this patch is not a mainstream
> kernel feature that will gain multiple uses, but rather provides
> support for a specific vendor middleware product used by that
> vendor and a few closely allied vendors. If it were smaller or
> less intrusive, such as a driver, this would not be a big problem.
> That's not the case.

I believe this feature would also make desktop users happier -- controlling
X-server, mpeg player, video capturing and all that -- if the code
becomes much simpler and easier to use.

> A major restructuring of this patch set could be considered, This
> might involve making the metric tools (that monitor memory, fork
> and network usage rates per task) separate patches useful for other
> purposes. It might also make the rate limiters in fork, alloc and
> network i/o separately useful patches. I mean here genuinely useful
> and understandable in their own right, independent of some abstract
> CKRM framework.

That makes sense.

> Though hints have been dropped, I have not seen any public effort to
> integrate CKRM with either cpusets or scheduler domains or process
> accounting. By this I don't mean recoding cpusets using the CKRM
> infrastructure; that proposal received _extensive_ consideration
> earlier, and I am as certain as ever that it made no sense. Rather I
> could imagine the CKRM folks extending cpusets to manage resources
> on a per-cpuset basis, not just on a per-task or task class basis.
> Similarly, it might make sense to use CKRM to manage resources on
> a per-sched domain basis, and to integrate the resource tracking
> of CKRM with the resource tracking needs of system accounting.

From a standpoint of the users, CKRM and CPUSETS should be managed
seamlessly through the same interface though I'm not sure whether
your idea is the best yet.

Hirokazu Takahashi.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-18 12:17    [W:0.089 / U:7.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site