[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061106130921.7ed66fa5.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, jlan@....com, Simon.Derr@...l.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 2/6] Cpusets hooked into containers
Paul M wrote:
> It basically makes "cpuset" an alias for "container"
> in the relevant /proc directories if CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API is
> defined.
Paul M - I never replied to your initial CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API
patch proposal - sorry.
An aspect of this proposal never made sense to me, so I put it aside
and went on to other things.
It is important to me that the current cpuset API be maintained. The
cpuset API seems to be working well, for a number of users.
Occassionally I will agree to subtle API changes (see another thread
concerning cpu_exclusive and sched_domain cpuset flags), but not
anything likely to break user code outright, except under duress.
But I presume this CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API option means I either
get to build a kernel that supports the new container API, or a kernel
that supports the old cpuset API. That does not seem useful to me.
We need to support both API's, at runtime, at the same time. Not a choice
of API's at build time with a kernel CONFIG option.
Perhaps I am missing something ...
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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