Dipankar wrote:
> If what subcpusets is doing is slicing cpusets resources, then wouldn't
> it be more intusive to call them slice0, slice1 etc. under the
> respective cpuset ?
If we continue with Takahiro-san's design, then I agree that the name
'subcpusets' doesn't have quite the right connotations, and would join
you in exploring alternative names.
First it looks to be worth exploring alternatives that make resource
control more an attribute of existing cpusets than a new (sub) type of
cpuset, as Dinakar and I have both contemplated in earlier posts today.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |