On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:57 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:

quoted

Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering
in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how
does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of
% of resources. 

If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %.
Simple enough.

But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got
100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy
might look as follows.

It is complex but semantics is pretty well defined.  It should behave
exactly the same as HTB.  Whether the complexity would be justifiable
is a different issue.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun