On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:53 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 14:36 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
<snip>
> > 2. as was discussed with a number of people on summit we agreed that
> > it maybe more flexible to not merge all resource types into one set.
> > CPU scheduler is usefull by itself w/o memory management.
> > the same for disk I/O bandwidht which is controlled in CFQ by
> > a separate system call.
> >
> > it is also more logical to have them separate since they
> > operate in different terms. For example, for CPU it is
> > shares which are relative units, while for memory it is
> > absolute units in bytes.
>
> We don't have to tie the units with the number. We can leave it to be
> sorted out between the user and the controller writer.
Yes. The user specifies a ratio of the parent group's resources and the
controller maps that unitless number into appropriate units for the
resource.
> Current implementation of resource groups does that.
IMHO this also better facilitates hotplug addition/removal of resources,
arbitrary levels of groups, and containers.
<snip>
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
