On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:53:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:34:38 -0700
> "Paul Menage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew, how about we merge enough of the container framework to
> > support CFS? Bits we could leave out for now include container_clone()
> > support and the nsproxy subsystem, fork/exit callback hooks, and
> > possibly leave cpusets alone for now (which would also mean we could
> > skip the automatic release-agent stuff). I'm in Tokyo for the Linux
> > Foundation Japan symposium right now, but I should be able to get the
> > new patchset to you for Friday afternoon.
>
> mm.. Given that you propose leaving bits out for the 2.6.23 merge, and
> that changes are still pending and that nothing will _use_ the framework in
> 2.6.23 [...]
Andrew,
The cpu group scheduler is ready and waiting for the container patches
in 2.6.23 :)
Here are some options with us:
a. (As Paul says) merge enough of container patches to enable
its use with cfs group scheduler (and possibly cpusets?)
b. Enable group scheduling bits in 2.6.23 using the user-id grouping
mechanism (aka fair user scheduler). For 2.6.24, we could remove
this interface and use Paul's container patches instead. Since this
means change of API interface between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24, I don't
prefer this option.
c. Enable group scheduling bits only in -mm for now (2.6.23-mmX), using
Paul's container patches. I can send you a short patch that hooks up
cfs group scheduler with Paul's container infrastructure.
If a. is not possible, I would prefer c.
Let me know your thoughts ..
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
