lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:43:20AM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Consensus:
> > ...
> > - Dont support heirarchy for now
>
> Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;).
>
> 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
> basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front.
> The rest will follow, much easier.

Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on
the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the
controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining.

However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel
API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we
latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad.

One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports hierarchy
but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the initial
versions. Would that work?

--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-30 18:07    [W:0.298 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site