On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > >I'm inclined to take the cautious route here - I don't think people will be > >dying for the CFS thingy (which I didn't even know about?) in .23, and it's > >rather a lot of infrastructure to add for a CPU scheduler configurator > > Selecting the relevant patches to give enough of the container > framework to support a CFS container subsystem (slightly > tweaked/updated versions of the base patch, procfs interface patch and > tasks file interface patch) is about 1600 lines in kernel/container.c > and another 200 in kernel/container.h, which is about 99% of the > non-documentation changes. > > So not tiny, but it's not very intrusive on the rest of the kernel, > and would avoid having to introduce a temporary API based on uids.
Yes that would be good. As long as the user-land interface for process containers doesn't change (much?) between 2.6.23 and later releases this should be a good workaround for us. -- 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/
