[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061101015030.451b7a86.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 01:50:30 -0800
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>
Cc: menage@...gle.com, 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
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.
If the later, I disagree.
> So it appears
> that the manipulation of containers would most effectively be done from
> userspace by a syscall approach.
Yup - sure sounds like you're advocating a flat container space
accessed by system calls.
Sure doesn't sound right to me. I like hierarchical containers,
accessed via like a file system.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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