Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:20:33 +0200 Cedric Le Goater wrote:

> Paul Menage wrote:
> > On 9/10/07, Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> On 10/09/2007, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> objection ;)  "cpuctlr" isn't memorable.  Kernel code is write-rarely,
> >>>> read-often.  "cpu_controller", please.  The extra typing is worth it ;)
> >>> Ok! Here's the modified patch (against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1).
> >> as everyone seems to be in a quest for a better name... I think, the
> >> obvious one would be just 'group_sched'.
> >>
> > 
> > But "sched" on its own could refer to CPU scheduling, I/O scheduling,
> > network scheduling, ...
> > 
> > And "group" is more or less implied by the fact that it's in the
> > containers/control groups filesystem.
> 
> "control groups" is the name of your framework. right ?
> 
> > So "group_sched" isn't really all that informative. The name should
> > definitely contain either "cpu" or "cfs".
> 
> "cfs" control group subsystem.

That looks odd, like it's a filesystem.
What does cfs really mean?


> "cfs" looks good enough to identify the subsystem.


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***