Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpucontroller

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 03:11:54 EST

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:36:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > ug, I didn't know this. Had I been there (sorry) I'd have disagreed with
> > this whole strategy.
> >
> > I thought the most recently posted CKRM core was a fine piece of code. It
> > provides the machinery for grouping tasks together and the machinery for
> > establishing and viewing those groupings via configfs, and other such
> > common functionality. My 20-minute impression was that this code was an
> > easy merge and it was just awaiting some useful controllers to come along.
> >
> > And now we've dumped the good infrastructure and instead we've contentrated
> > on the controller, wired up via some imaginative ab^H^Hreuse of the cpuset
> > layer.
> Andrew,
> CPUset was used in this patch series primarily because it
> represent a task-grouping mechanism already in the kernel and because
> people at the BoF wanted to start with something simple. The idea of using
> cpusets here was not to push this as a final solution, but use it as a means to
> discuss the effects of task-grouping on CPU scheduler.


> We had be more than happy to work with the ckrm core which was posted last.
> In fact I had sent out the same cpu controller against ckrm core itself last
> time around to Nick/Ingo.


Please don't let me derail the main intent of this work - to make some progress
on the CPU controller.

There was a lot of discussion last time - Mike, Ingo, others. It would be
a useful starting point if we could be refreshed on what the main issues
were, and whether/how this new patchset addresses them.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at