On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 17:55 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:1. nothing prevents fair cpu scheduler from using UBC infrastructure.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:24:03PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
As the first step we want to propose for discussion
the most complicated parts of resource management:
kernel memory and virtual memory.
Do you have any plans to post a CPU controller? Is that tied to UBC
interface as well?
Not everything at once :) To tell the truth I think CPU controller
is even more complicated than user memory accounting/limiting.
No, fair CPU scheduler is not tied to UBC in any regard.
Not having the CPU controller on UBC doesn't sound good for the
infrastructure. IMHO, the infrastructure (for resource management) we
are going to have should be able to support different resource
controllers, without each controllers needing to have their own
infrastructure/interface etc.,
I'm not advocating to have a different infrastructure.As we discussed before, it is valuable to have an ability to limit
different resources separately (CPU, disk I/O, memory, etc.).
Having ability to limit/control different resources separately not
necessarily mean we should have different infrastructure for each.
If you have a single container controlling all the resources, thenFor example, it can be possible to place some mission criticalI don't understand the comment above (in this context).
kernel threads (like kjournald) in a separate contanier.