Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:37:01 -0700 |
| |
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.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |