[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070428184744.bc0345a0.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:47:44 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: menage@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru,
serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Containers (V9): Generic Process Containers
> - decide whether "Containers" is an acceptable name for the system
> given its usage by some other development groups, or whether something
> else (ProcessSets? ResourceGroups? TaskGroups?) would be better
I place in nomination:
tasksets
However this would conflict with the taskset utility in Robert Loves
schedutils package. The 'taskset' command "is used to set or retrieve
the CPU affinity of a running process given its PID or to launch a new
COMMAND with a given CPU affinity."
The various alternatives you listed all have the advantage of stating
both that we have a container/group/set/collection/... of something,
and -what- that something might be - process/resource/task/...
"tasksets" is the shortest spelling I could think of for such a compond
"Something-Collection" form.
If the conflict with the schedutils utility is a concern, then the
next best alternative would be:
taskgroups
This is the next shortest way to spell this "Something-Collection" form.
--
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