On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 06:12:39PM -0400, Eric St-Laurent wrote: > While a sysfs interface is OK and somewhat orthogonal to the interface > proposed the containers patches, I think maybe a new syscall should be > considered.
We had discussed syscall vs filesystem based interface for resource management [1] and there was a heavy bias favoring filesystem based interface, based on which the container (now "cgroup") filesystem evolved. Where we already have one interface defined, I would be against adding an equivalent syscall interface. Note that this "fair-user" scheduling can in theory be accomplished using the same cgroup based interface, but requires some extra setup in userspace (either to run a daemon which moves tasks to appropriate control groups/containers upon their uid change OR to modify initrd to mount cgroup filesystem at early bootup time). I expect most distros to enable CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED (control group based fair group scheduler) and not CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SHCED (user id based fair group scheduler). The only reason why we are providing CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED and the associated sysfs interface is to help test group scheduler w/o requiring knowledge of cgroup filesystem. Reference: 1. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=116231242201300&w=2 -- 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/
