Mark Hahn wrote:
I suspect that the main problem is that this patch is not a mainstream
kernel feature that will gain multiple uses, but rather provides
support for a specific vendor middleware product used by that
vendor and a few closely allied vendors. If it were smaller or
less intrusive, su
Paul Jackson wrote:
Martin wrote:
No offense, but I really don't see why this matters at all ... the stuff
in -mm is what's under consideration for merging - what's in SuSE is ...
Yes - what's in SuSE doesn't matter, at least not directly.
No - we are not just considering the CKRM that is i
Paul Jackson wrote:
Sorry for the late response - I just saw this note.
Shailabh wrote:
So if the current CPU controller
implementation is considered too intrusive/unacceptable, it can be
reworked or (and we certainly hope not) even rejected in perpetuity.
It is certainly reasonable t
As best as I can figure out, CKRM is a fair share scheduler with a
gussied up more modular architecture, so that the components to track
usage, control (throttle) tasks, and classify tasks are separate
plugins.
> I'm not an expert on CKRM, so I'll leave the refuting (or notrefuting)
> of your cl
Peter Williams wrote:
Shailabh Nagar wrote:
At line 3887 of cpu.ckrm-e17.v10.patch you add the line:
set_task_cpu(p,this_cpu);
to the middle of the function wake_up_new_task() resulting in the
following code:
} else {
this_rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
/*
* Not the
Version e17 of the Class-based Kernel Resource Management
is now available for download from
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=85838&package_id=94608
The major updates since the previous version include:
1. Numerous bugfixes
2. Control over rate of process forks through the nu
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 12:52 -0500, Shailabh Nagar wrote:
Version e17 of the Class-based Kernel Resource Management
is now available for download from
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=85838&package_id=94608
If you want comments on these, please post
Greg KH wrote:
+config RCFS_FS
+ tristate "Resource Class File System (User API)"
+ depends on CKRM
+ help
+ RCFS is the filesystem API for CKRM. This separate configuration
+ option is provided only for debugging and will eventually disappear
+ since rcfs will be automounted whenever CKRM
Diego Calleja wrote:
El Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:05:30 -0800,
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
worth having. I for one am a CKRM skeptic, so won't be much help to you
in that quest. Good luck.
I don't see any performance numbers, either on small systems, or
scalability on large systems. Ce
Paul Jackson wrote:
Diego wrote:
I bet I'm not the only one here
who can't understand it either.
You're not alone.
See an email thread entitled:
Classes: 1) what are they, 2) what is their name?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=5328162&forum_id=35191
on the ckrm-
Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'm hoping that the CKRM folks will send me a patch to add their
scheduler to plugsched :-)
They are planning to release a patch against 2.6.10. But their patch wont
stand alone against 2.6.10 and so it might be difficult for you to integrate
their code into a
11 matches
Mail list logo
