[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061101163159.GA25606@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:01:59 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>
Cc: dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, matthltc@...ibm.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:29:37PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> This would forces all tasks in container A to belong to the same mem/io ctlr
> groups. What if that is not desired? How would we achieve something like
> this:
>
> tasks (m) should belong to mem ctlr group D,
> tasks (n, o) should belong to mem ctlr group E
> tasks (m, n, o) should belong to i/o ctlr group G
>
> (this example breaks the required condition/assumption that a task belong to
> exactly only one process container).
>
> Is this a unrealistic requirement? I suspect not and should give this
> flexibilty, if we ever have to support task-grouping that is
> unique to each resource. Fundamentally process grouping exists because
> of various resource and not otherwise.
In this article, http://lwn.net/Articles/94573/, Linus is quoted to want
something close to the above example, I think.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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