Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpucontroller
From: Kirill Korotaev
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 10:17:26 EST
ug, I didn't know this. Had I been there (sorry) I'd have disagreed withI wish you were here :/
this whole strategy.
I thought the most recently posted CKRM core was a fine piece of code. Itthe same thing does User BeanCounter patch.
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.
The infrastructure is totally a separate question.
Moreover, as CKRM/UBC experience shows it is the most easiest code to agree on.
And as people agreed we need to speak about serious problems first,
not the interface one (at least, not at the moment when we have no working
And now we've dumped the good infrastructure and instead we've contentratedexactly. We have no workable controller.
on the controller, wired up via some imaginative ab^H^Hreuse of the cpuset
So if there is no code we agreed on, whom is this infrastructure for?
I wonder how many of the consensus-makers were familiar with theI was familiar. And I can arise many arguable points in the CKRM infrastructure.
contemporary CKRM core?
1. Should task-group be changeable after set/inherited once?
Are you planning to recalculate resources on group change?
e.g. shared memory or used kernel memory is hard to recalculate.
2. should task-group resource container manage all the resources as a whole?
e.g. in OpenVZ tasks can belong to different CPU and UBC containers.
It is more flexible and e.g. we used to put some vital kernel threads
to a separate CPU group to decrease delays in service.
3. I also don't understand why normal binary interface like system call is not used.
We have set_uid, sys_setrlimit and it works pretty good, does it?
4. do we want hierarchical grouping?
I hope so :)
- Design of individual resource controllers like memory and cpu
Right. We won't be controlling memory, numtasks, disk, network etc
controllers via cpusets, will we?
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/