Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:29:51 +0400 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [ProbableSpam] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller |
| |
>>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? > > > If there are no hierarchies, a syscall interface is fine since the namespace > for the task-group is flat (so one can export to userspace either a number or a > string as a handle to that task-group for operations like create, delete, > set limit, get usage, etc) syscalls work fine here as well. you need to specify parent_id and new_id for creation. that's all. we have such an interfaces for heirarchical CPU scheduler.
> A filesystem based interface is useful when you have hierarchies (as resource > groups and cpusets do) since it naturally defines a convenient to use > hierarchical namespace. but it is not much convinient for applications then.
Thanks, Kirill
- 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/
| |