[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <454609DE.9060901@openvz.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:10 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Paul Jackson wrote:
> vatsa wrote:
>> C. Paul Menage's container patches
>>
>> Provides a generic heirarchial ...
>>
>> Consensus/Debated Points
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Consensus:
>> ...
>> - Dont support heirarchy for now
>
> Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;).
Agree.
>
> I for one would recommend getting the hierarchy right from the
> beginning.
>
> Though I can appreciate that others were trying to "keep it simple"
> and postpone dealing with such complications. I don't agree.
>
> Such stuff as this deeply affects all that sits on it. Get the
I can share our experience with it.
Hierarchy support over beancounters was done in one patch.
This patch altered only three places - charge/uncharge routines,
beancounter creation/destruction code and BC's /proc entry.
All the rest code was not modified.
My point is that a good infrastrucure doesn't care wether
or not beancounter (group controller) has a parent.
> basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front.
> The rest will follow, much easier.
>
> Good review of the choices - thanks.
>
-
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