Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:30:13 +0300 | From | Pavel Emelianov <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices |
| |
> Consensus/Debated Points > ------------------------ > > Consensus: > > - Provide resource control over a group of tasks > - Support movement of task from one resource group to another > - Dont support heirarchy for now > - Support limit (soft and/or hard depending on the resource > type) in controllers. Guarantee feature could be indirectly > met thr limits. > > Debated: > - syscall vs configfs interface
OK. Let's stop at configfs interface to move...
> - Interaction of resource controllers, containers and cpusets > - Should we support, for instance, creation of resource > groups/containers under a cpuset? > - Should we have different groupings for different resources?
I propose to discuss this question as this is the most important now from my point of view.
I believe this can be done, but can't imagine how to use this...
> - Support movement of all threads of a process from one group > to another atomically?
I propose such a solution: if a user asks to move /proc/<pid> then move the whole task with threads. If user asks to move /proc/<pid>/task/<tid> then move just a single thread.
What do you think? - 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/
| |