On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 12:36 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:
I agree with you, Martin.
> >>It would certainly be possible to have finer-grained locking. But the
> >>cpuset code seems pretty happy with coarse-grained locking (only one
> >
> >
> > cpuset may be happy today. But, It will not be happy when there are tens
> > of other container subsystems use the same locks to protect their own
> > data structures. Using such coarse locking will certainly affect the
> > scalability.
>
> All of this (and the rest of the snipped email with suggested
> improvements) makes pretty good sense. But would it not be better
> to do this in stages?
>
> 1) Split the code out from cpusets
Paul (Menage) is already work on this.
We will work out the rest.
> 2) Move to configfs
> 3) Work on locking scalability, etc ...
>
> Else it'd seem that we'll never get anywhere, and it'll all be
> impossible to review anyway. Incremental improvement would seem to
> be a much easier way to fix this stuff, to me.
>
> M.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
