[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070712053935.GA31526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:09:35 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:44:42PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> >I'm inclined to take the cautious route here - I don't think people will be
> >dying for the CFS thingy (which I didn't even know about?) in .23, and it's
> >rather a lot of infrastructure to add for a CPU scheduler configurator
>
> Selecting the relevant patches to give enough of the container
> framework to support a CFS container subsystem (slightly
> tweaked/updated versions of the base patch, procfs interface patch and
> tasks file interface patch) is about 1600 lines in kernel/container.c
> and another 200 in kernel/container.h, which is about 99% of the
> non-documentation changes.
>
> So not tiny, but it's not very intrusive on the rest of the kernel,
> and would avoid having to introduce a temporary API based on uids.
Yes that would be good. As long as the user-land interface for process
containers doesn't change (much?) between 2.6.23 and later releases this
should be a good workaround for us.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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