[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070711044244.c0916fe5.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:42:44 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, containers@...ts.osdl.org, menage@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)
Srivatsa wrote:
> The fact that we will have two interface for group scheduler in 2.6.24
> is what worries me a bit (one user-id based and other container based).
Yeah.
One -could- take linear combinations, as Peter drew in his ascii art,
but would one -want- to do that?
I imagine some future time, when users of this wonder why the API is
more complicated than seems necessary, with two factors determining
task-groups where one seems sufficient, and the answer is "the other
factor, user-id's, is just there because we needed it as an interim
mechanism, and then had to keep it, to preserve ongoing compatibility.
That's not a very persuasive justification.
--
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