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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
