Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[Pavel Emelianov]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> vatsa wrote:
>> C. Paul Menage's container patches
>>
>> 	Provides a generic heirarchial ...
>>
>> Consensus/Debated Points
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Consensus:
>> 	...
>> 	- Dont support heirarchy for now
> 
> Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;).

Agree.

> 
> I for one would recommend getting the hierarchy right from the
> beginning.
> 
> Though I can appreciate that others were trying to "keep it simple"
> and postpone dealing with such complications.  I don't agree.
> 
> Such stuff as this deeply affects all that sits on it.  Get the

I can share our experience with it.
Hierarchy support over beancounters was done in one patch.
This patch altered only three places - charge/uncharge routines,
beancounter creation/destruction code and BC's /proc entry.
All the rest code was not modified.

My point is that a good infrastrucure doesn't care wether
or not beancounter (group controller) has a parent.

> basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front.
> The rest will follow, much easier.
> 
> Good review of the choices - thanks.
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/