Paul M wrote:
> I'm don't think that either of these would be enough to justify big
> changes to cpusets or cgroups, although eliminating bloat is always a
> good thing.
My "tiny cpuset" idea doesn't so much eliminate bloat, as provide a
thin alternative, along side of the existing fat alternative. So
far as kernel source goes, it would get bigger, not smaller, with now
two CONFIG choices for cpusets, fat or tiny.
The odds are, however, given that one of us has just promised not to
code this, and the other of us doesn't figure it's worth it, this
idea will not live long. Someone would have to step up from the
embedded side with a coded version that saved a nice chunk of memory
(from their perspective) to get this off the ground, and no telling
whether even that would meet with a warm reception.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/
