* Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] Re: CPUSET Proposal
@ 2003-09-25 16:06 Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2003-09-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> Paul, yes CKRM classes at this point are flat, we looked initially at
> hierarchies and determined that for the first release might add a lot of
> complexity with questionable benefits for the community at large. So we
> left hierarchies out. Based on the general community feedback we might
> have to revisit this issue.
I'm not sure we will ever need hierarchies in the kernel.
For all intents and purposes, we might be able to emulate
them in userspace by having a daemon interpret the class
resource usage statistics and adjusting priorities
dynamically ;)
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2003-09-25 16:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-25 16:06 [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] Re: CPUSET Proposal Rik van Riel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox