[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4549AF81.2060706@openvz.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:42:41 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, dev@...nvz.org,
sekharan@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:01:31AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> Sorry dont get you here. Are you saying we should support different
>>> grouping for different controllers?
>> Not me, but other people in this thread.
>
> Hmm ..I thought OpenVz folks were interested in having different
> groupings for different resources i.e grouping for CPU should be
> independent of the grouping for memory.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/18/98
>
> Isnt that true?
That's true. We don't mind having different groupings for
different resources. But what I was sying in this thread is
"I didn't *propose* this thing, I just *agreed* that this
might be usefull for someone."
So if we're going to have different groupings for different
resources what's the use of "container" grouping all "controllers"
together? I see this situation like each task_struct carries
pointers to kmemsize controller, pivate pages controller,
physical pages controller, CPU time controller, disk bandwidth
controller, etc. Right? Or did I miss something?
-
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