[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D6EBEF.9010804@sw.ru>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:29:51 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: Shailabh Nagar <nagar@...son.ibm.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, vatsa@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
pj@....com
Subject: Re: [ProbableSpam] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource
Management - A cpu controller
>>3. I also don't understand why normal binary interface like system call
>>is not used.
>> We have set_uid, sys_setrlimit and it works pretty good, does it?
>
>
> If there are no hierarchies, a syscall interface is fine since the namespace
> for the task-group is flat (so one can export to userspace either a number or a
> string as a handle to that task-group for operations like create, delete,
> set limit, get usage, etc)
syscalls work fine here as well. you need to specify parent_id and new_id for creation.
that's all. we have such an interfaces for heirarchical CPU scheduler.
> A filesystem based interface is useful when you have hierarchies (as resource
> groups and cpusets do) since it naturally defines a convenient to use
> hierarchical namespace.
but it is not much convinient for applications then.
Thanks,
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists