From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>
Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, jlan@sgi.com,
Simon.Derr@bull.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, rohitseth@google.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 2/6] Cpusets hooked into containers
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061106130921.7ed66fa5.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830611061255u458a795bpca1c360cb93f253@mail.gmail.com>
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@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-06 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-20 18:38 [PATCH 0/6] Generic Process Containers menage
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 1/6] Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code menage
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 2/6] Cpusets hooked into containers menage
2006-11-06 6:34 ` [ckrm-tech] " Balbir Singh
2006-11-06 20:55 ` Paul Menage
2006-11-06 21:09 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2006-11-06 21:22 ` Paul Menage
2006-11-07 14:06 ` Balbir Singh
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 3/6] Add generic multi-subsystem API to containers menage
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 4/6] Simple CPU accounting container subsystem menage
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 5/6] Extension to container system to allow fork/exit callbacks menage
2006-10-20 18:38 ` [PATCH 6/6] Resource Groups over generic containers menage
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061106130921.7ed66fa5.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=Simon.Derr@bull.net \
--cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jlan@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=rohitseth@google.com \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=winget@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome