lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
    On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Paul Jackson wrote:

    > David wrote:
    > > - While the process containers are only single-level, the controllers are
    > > _inherently_ hierarchial just like a filesystem. So it appears that
    >
    > Cpusets certainly enjoys what I would call hierarchical process
    > containers. I can't tell if your flat container space is just
    > a "for instance", or you're recommending we only have a flat
    > container space.
    >

    This was using the recommendation of "each process belongs to a single
    container that can be attached to controller nodes later." So while it is
    indeed possible for the controllers, whatever they are, to be hierarchical
    (and most assuredly should be), what is the objection against grouping
    processes in single-level containers? The only difference is that now
    when we assign processes to specific controllers with their attributes set
    as we desire, we are assigning a container (or group) processes instead of
    individual ones.

    David
    -
    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: 2006-11-01 11:01    [W:4.218 / U:0.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site