[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830609201042n7948a9e1s6cf70d0da04447f4@mail.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:42:24 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Rohit Seth" <rohitseth@...gle.com>, npiggin@...e.de, pj@....com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On 9/20/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
>
> I think we should have one container mechanism instead of multiple. Maybe
> merge the two? The cpuset functionality is well established and working
> right.
The basic container abstraction provided by cpusets is very nice -
maybe rename it from "cpuset" to "container"? Since it already
provides access to memory nodes as well as cpus, and could be extended
to handle other resource types too (network, disk).
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists