From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764048AbXGKMV2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761440AbXGKMVU (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:21:20 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:34214 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761393AbXGKMVT (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:21:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:00:48 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Ingo Molnar Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, menage@google.com, Paul Jackson , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Message-ID: <20070711123048.GA31130@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20070710105240.GA20914@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830707101134k29951c45h4af0807603f52b76@mail.gmail.com> <20070710115319.0bdaff34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070711045516.GH2927@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070710222942.382fc9ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070711090423.GA6758@elte.hu> <20070711022352.71604404.pj@sgi.com> <20070711100323.GA23473@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070711101958.GA10095@elte.hu> <20070711113953.GB23473@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070711113953.GB23473@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:09:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > (btw., if this goes into 2.6.23 then we cannot possibly turn it off in 2.6.24, > > 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). I know breaking user-interface is a bad thing across releases. But in this particular case, it's probably ok (since fair-group scheduling is a brand new feature in Linux)? If we have that option of breaking API between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 for fair-group scheduler, then we are in a much more flexible position. For 2.6.23, I can send a user-id based interface for fair-group scheduler (with some /proc interface to tune group nice value). For 2.6.24, this user-id interface will be removed and we will instead switch to container based interface. Fair-user scheduling will continue to work, its just that users will have to use a daemon (sources sent in previous mail) to enable it on top of container-based interface. Hmm..? -- Regards, vatsa