Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:42:53 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: vatsa@in.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, sam@vilain.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvz.org, efault@gmx.de,
       balbir@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, nagar@watson.ibm.com,
       haveblue@us.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu
 controller
Message-Id: <20060803224253.49068b98.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20060804050753.GD27194@in.ibm.com>
	<20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 935
Lines: 20

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:36:50 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> I thought the most recently posted CKRM core was a fine piece of code.

I mean, subject to more review, testing, input from stakeholders and blah,
I'd be OK with merging the CKRM core fairly aggressively.  With just a
minimal controller suite.  Because it is good to define the infrastructure
and APIs for task grouping and to then let the controllers fall into place.

The downside to such a strategy is that there is a risk that nobody ever
gets around to implementing useful controllers, so it ends up dead code. 
I'd judge that the interest in resource management is such that the risk of
this happening is low.

-
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/