Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:30:33 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:37:53 +0530 > Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote: > > >>Resource management has been talked about quite extensively in the >>past, more recently in the context of containers. The basic requirement >>here is to provide isolation between *groups* of task wrt their use >>of various resources like CPU, Memory, I/O bandwidth, open file-descriptors etc. >> >>Different maintainers have however expressed different opinions over the need to >>complicate the kernel to meet this need, especially since it involves core >>kernel code like the resource schedulers. >> >>A BoF was hence held at OLS this year to come to a consensus on the minimum >>requirements of a resource management solution for Linux kernel. Some notes >>taken at the BoF are posted here: >> >>http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0607.3/0896.html >> >>An important consensus point of the BoF seemed to be "focus on real >>controllers more, preferably memory first, using some simple interface >>and task grouping mechanism". > > > 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. > > I wonder how many of the consensus-makers were familiar with the > contemporary CKRM core?
Sorry, I've been busy with offline stuff and won't be able to catch up with emails until next week -- someone else might have already covered this.
But: I think we definitely agreed that a nice simple implementation and even userspace API for grouping tasks would be a no-brainer.
I advocated implementing some simple controllers on top of such an interface first, that people can start to put in some of their requirements, see if a common controller framework should be created, look at what interfaces people want for them.
I don't have a problem with CKRM as such, but I think there are other groups with good approaches and the problem has been to get people working together.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |