pj wrote:
> I haven't read it yet, but I will likely agree that
> this is an abuse of cpusets.
This likely just drove Srivatsa up a wall (sorry), as my comments
in the earlier thread he referenced:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/26/58
enthusiastically supported adding a cpu controller interface to cpusets.
We need to think through what are the relations between CKRM
controllers, containers and cpusets. But I don't think that
people will naturally want to manage CKRM controllers via cpusets.
That sounds odd to me now. My earlier enthusiasm for it seems
wrong to me now.
--
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
