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 [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]
