Hi,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:30:13 +0530
"Suryanarayanan, Rajaram" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this patch under discussion a new CPU resource controller for 2.6.15
> ?
> Or is it the modified version of the already existing resource
> controller for CKRM ?
It's not a forward port of the existing CPU resource controller
but a new CPU resource controller for CKRM. Its resource control
mechanism is different from that of the existing one.
> I just want to know if you are coming up with a different idea for CPU
> resource controller and whether we have choice between the existing
> resource controller and this new one ?
If someone forward-ports the existing controller for CKRM f- version,
we will have a choice.
Regards,
--
KUROSAWA, Takahiro
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:26:04PM +0900, KUROSAWA Takahiro wrote:
> It's not a forward port of the existing CPU resource controller
> but a new CPU resource controller for CKRM. Its resource control
> mechanism is different from that of the existing one.
Hmm ..I guess it depends on which version of CKRM you are referring when
you say "existing". When I replied earlier, I was referring to f-series.
f-series cpu controller is based on the patch you sent to lkml right?
--
Regards,
vatsa
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:08:52 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's not a forward port of the existing CPU resource controller
> > but a new CPU resource controller for CKRM. Its resource control
> > mechanism is different from that of the existing one.
>
> Hmm ..I guess it depends on which version of CKRM you are referring when
> you say "existing". When I replied earlier, I was referring to f-series.
> f-series cpu controller is based on the patch you sent to lkml right?
Ah, I referred to the CKRM e- series controller as "existing controller"
and referred to the controller that I had sent as "a new CPU resource
controller."
So, the controller that I had sent is the existing controller of
f- series.
Sorry for confusion,
--
KUROSAWA, Takahiro