On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 19:22 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Last time I looked at the CKRM cpu controller code I found
> it was quite horrible, with a great deal of duplication and
> very intrusive large and complex.
I admit it :)... and that was the reason why we did not post that to
lkml.
> It could have come a long way since then, but this code looks
Since we were not planning to use it there isn't much change in the
code :(
> much neater than the code I reviewed.
>
> I guess the question of the resource controller stuff is going
> to come up again sooner or later. I would hope to have just a
> single CPU resource controller (presumably based on cpusets),
> the simpler the better ;)
We were planning to start on a simplified CPU controller that can
provide the functionalities CKRM is expected to provide.
As I stated in an earlier email cpusubsets looks promising for CKRM, but
we are not able to spend more time on it as of now as the team is very
busy trimming down CKRM.
>
> Nick
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
