On 9/20/06, Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]> wrote:
> We already have such a functionality in the kernel its called a cpuset. A
Christoph,
There had been multiple discussions in the past (as recent as Aug 18,
2006), where we (Paul and CKRM/RG folks) have concluded that cpuset and
resource management are orthogonal features.
cpuset provides "resource isolation", and what we, the resource
management guys want is work-conserving resource control.
CPUset provides two things:
- a generic process container abstraction
- "resource controllers" for CPU masks and memory nodes.
Rather than adding a new process container abstraction, wouldn't it
make more sense to change cpuset to make it more extensible (more
separation between resource controllers), possibly rename it to
"containers", and let the various resource controllers fight it out
(e.g. zone/node-based memory controller vs multiple LRU controller,
CPU masks vs a properly QoS-based CPU scheduler, etc)
Or more specifically, what would need to be added to cpusets to make
it possible to bolt the CKRM/RG resource controllers on to it?
Paul
-
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]
