From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758695AbXGKEqA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:46:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752110AbXGKEpw (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:45:52 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:56325 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752068AbXGKEpv (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:45:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:25:16 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Andrew Morton 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: <20070711045516.GH2927@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070710115319.0bdaff34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 .. -- Regards, vatsa