[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0611021714080.12501@attu4.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:29:32 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, 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
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> 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?
My understanding is that the only addition to the task_struct is a pointer
to the struct container it belongs to. Then, the various controllers can
register the control files through the fs-based container interface and
all the manipulation can be done at that level. Having each task_struct
containing pointers to individual resource nodes was never proposed.
David
-
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