Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:42:44 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| |
Srivatsa wrote: > The fact that we will have two interface for group scheduler in 2.6.24 > is what worries me a bit (one user-id based and other container based).
Yeah.
One -could- take linear combinations, as Peter drew in his ascii art, but would one -want- to do that?
I imagine some future time, when users of this wonder why the API is more complicated than seems necessary, with two factors determining task-groups where one seems sufficient, and the answer is "the other factor, user-id's, is just there because we needed it as an interim mechanism, and then had to keep it, to preserve ongoing compatibility. That's not a very persuasive justification.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |