From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754287AbXGLFad (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:30:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750742AbXGLFaX (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:30:23 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:44890 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453AbXGLFaW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:30:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:09:35 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Paul Menage" Cc: "Andrew Morton" , containers@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Message-ID: <20070712053935.GA31526@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> <20070711045516.GH2927@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070710222942.382fc9ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6599ad830707111244g5da91426g79b01aef4302658@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830707111244g5da91426g79b01aef4302658@mail.gmail.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 12:44:42PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > >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 > > Selecting the relevant patches to give enough of the container > framework to support a CFS container subsystem (slightly > tweaked/updated versions of the base patch, procfs interface patch and > tasks file interface patch) is about 1600 lines in kernel/container.c > and another 200 in kernel/container.h, which is about 99% of the > non-documentation changes. > > So not tiny, but it's not very intrusive on the rest of the kernel, > and would avoid having to introduce a temporary API based on uids. Yes that would be good. As long as the user-land interface for process containers doesn't change (much?) between 2.6.23 and later releases this should be a good workaround for us. -- Regards, vatsa