Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965346AbWJ3REM (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965334AbWJ3REM (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:12 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:47257 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965347AbWJ3REK (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:39:16 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Paul Jackson Cc: dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, menage@google.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices Message-ID: <20061030170916.GA9588@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <20061030024320.962b4a88.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061030024320.962b4a88.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1423 Lines: 37 On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:43:20AM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Consensus: > > ... > > - Dont support heirarchy for now > > Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;). > > I for one would recommend getting the hierarchy right from the > beginning. > > Though I can appreciate that others were trying to "keep it simple" > and postpone dealing with such complications. I don't agree. > > Such stuff as this deeply affects all that sits on it. Get the > basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front. > The rest will follow, much easier. Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining. However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad. One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports hierarchy but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the initial versions. Would that work? -- 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/