Re: [RFC] Revised CKRM release

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:41:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The basic concepts and motivation of CKRM remain the same as described
> > in the overview at http://ckrm.sf.net. Privileged users can define
> > classes consisting of groups of kernel objects (currently tasks and
> > sockets) and specify shares for these classes. Resource controllers,
> > which are independent of each other, can regulate and monitor the
> > resources consumed by classes e.g the CPU controller will control the
> > CPU time received by a class etc. Optional classification engines,
> > implemented as kernel modules, can assist in the automatic
> > classification of the kernel objects (tasks/sockets currently) into
> > classes.
> 
> I'd still love to see practical problems this thing is solving.  It's
> a few thousand lines of code, not written to linux style guidelines,
> sometimes particularly obsfucated with callbacks all over the place.
> 
> I'd hate to see this in the kernel unless there's a very strong need
> for it and no way to solve it at a nicer layer of abstraction, e.g.
> userland virtual machines ala uml/umlinux.

I have been reading CKRM docs this week and I think something which provides the 
same functionality is required for v2.7.

I haven't read the code yet, though. It probably should be converted to 
"linux style" and simplified whenever possible.

Right now our resource-limit infrastructure is very basic and limited. CKRM 
provides advanced/fine grained resource management.