[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830610301303m6aea781cja7aaa4b3633c07fe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:03:20 -0800
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc: dev@...nvz.org, vatsa@...ibm.com, 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
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On 10/30/06, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> - there is a single hierarchy of process containers
> - each process is a member of exactly one process container
>
> - for each resource controller, there's a hierarchy of resource "nodes"
> - each process container is associated with exactly one resource node
> of each type
>
> - by default, the process container hierarchy and the resource node
> hierarchies are isomorphic, but that can be controlled by userspace.
A simpler alternative that I thought about would be to restrict the
resource contoller hierarchies to be strict subtrees of the process
container hierarchy - so at each stage in the hierarchy, a container
could either inherit its parent's node for a given resource or have a
new child node (i.e. be in the same cpuset or be in a fresh child
cpuset).
This is a much simpler abstraction to present to userspace (simply one
flag for each resource controller in each process container) and might
be sufficient for all reasonable scenarios.
Paul
-
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