From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760915AbXGKFaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:30:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755749AbXGKFaE (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:30:04 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:37379 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753972AbXGKFaB (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:30:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:29:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "Paul Menage" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Message-Id: <20070710222942.382fc9ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070711045516.GH2927@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070710105240.GA20914@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830707101134k29951c45h4af0807603f52b76@mail.gmail.com> <20070710115319.0bdaff34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070711045516.GH2927@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:25:16 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:53:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:34:38 -0700 > > "Paul Menage" wrote: > > > > > Andrew, how about we merge enough of the container framework to > > > support CFS? Bits we could leave out for now include container_clone() > > > support and the nsproxy subsystem, fork/exit callback hooks, and > > > possibly leave cpusets alone for now (which would also mean we could > > > skip the automatic release-agent stuff). I'm in Tokyo for the Linux > > > Foundation Japan symposium right now, but I should be able to get the > > > new patchset to you for Friday afternoon. > > > > mm.. Given that you propose leaving bits out for the 2.6.23 merge, and > > that changes are still pending and that nothing will _use_ the framework in > > 2.6.23 [...] > > Andrew, > The cpu group scheduler is ready and waiting for the container patches > in 2.6.23 :) > > Here are some options with us: > > a. (As Paul says) merge enough of container patches to enable > its use with cfs group scheduler (and possibly cpusets?) > > b. Enable group scheduling bits in 2.6.23 using the user-id grouping > mechanism (aka fair user scheduler). For 2.6.24, we could remove > this interface and use Paul's container patches instead. Since this > means change of API interface between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24, I don't > prefer this option. > > c. Enable group scheduling bits only in -mm for now (2.6.23-mmX), using > Paul's container patches. I can send you a short patch that hooks up > cfs group scheduler with Paul's container infrastructure. > > If a. is not possible, I would prefer c. > > Let me know your thoughts .. I'm inclined to take the cautious route here - I don't think people will be dying for the CFS thingy (which I didn't even know about?) in .23, and it's rather a lot of infrastructure to add for a CPU scheduler configurator gadget (what does it do, anyway?) We have plenty of stuff for 2.6.23 already ;) Is this liveable with??