[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070911085301.ca3a00e4.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:53:01 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container
infrastructure
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:21:19 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:22:43AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > That looks odd, like it's a filesystem.
> > What does cfs really mean?
>
> cfs = completely fair scheduler :)
>
> In this thread, we are talking of hooking the cfs cpu scheduler with the
> task-container framework in -mm tree, so that the scheduler can deal
> with groups of tasks rather than just tasks, while handling fairness of
> cpu allocation.
>
> I agree "cfs" control subsystem does look odd a bit here. "cpu" control
> subsystem seems better.
Thanks. I agree that using "cpu" is better. I.e., don't tie it
to a particular scheduler name. It would just need to change the
next time we have a new scheduler. ;)
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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