[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162954075.12419.583.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:47:54 -0800
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org,
sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
balbir@...ibm.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 12:02 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
> > I think it's better to treat resource groups as a common framework for
> > resource controllers, rather than a resource controller itself.
>
> You could well be right here - I was just using resource groups
> as another good example of a controller. I'll let others decide
> if that's one or several controllers.
At various stages different controllers were available with the core
patches or separately. The numtasks, cpu, io, socket accept queue, and
memory controllers were available for early CKRM patches. More recently
(April 2006) numtasks, cpu, and memory controllers were available for
Resource Groups.
So I'd say "several".
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-
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