Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:11:09 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, 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: <20060804114109.GA28988@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
References: <20060804050753.GD27194@in.ibm.com> <20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060803224253.49068b98.akpm@osdl.org> <1154684950.23655.178.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1154684950.23655.178.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1009
Lines: 21

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I think the risk is that OpenVZ has all the controls and resource
> managers we need, while CKRM is still more research-ish. I find the
> OpenVZ code much clearer, cleaner and complete at the moment, although
> also much more conservative in its approach to solving problems.

I think it would be nice to compare first the features provided by ckrm and 
openvz at some point and agree upon the minimum common features we need to have 
as we go forward. For instance I think Openvz assumes that tasks do
not need to move between containers (task-groups), whereas ckrm provides this
flexibility for workload management. This may have some effect on the 
controller/interface design, no?

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/