From: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
pj@sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, winget@google.com,
rohitseth@google.com, jlan@sgi.com, Joel.Becker@oracle.com,
Simon.Derr@bull.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:36:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45240D20.3080202@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1159988217.24266.60.camel@linuxchandra>
>>It would certainly be possible to have finer-grained locking. But the
>>cpuset code seems pretty happy with coarse-grained locking (only one
>
>
> cpuset may be happy today. But, It will not be happy when there are tens
> of other container subsystems use the same locks to protect their own
> data structures. Using such coarse locking will certainly affect the
> scalability.
All of this (and the rest of the snipped email with suggested
improvements) makes pretty good sense. But would it not be better
to do this in stages?
1) Split the code out from cpusets
2) Move to configfs
3) Work on locking scalability, etc ...
Else it'd seem that we'll never get anywhere, and it'll all be
impossible to review anyway. Incremental improvement would seem to
be a much easier way to fix this stuff, to me.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-04 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-02 9:53 [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system Paul Menage
2006-10-02 9:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/4] Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code Paul Menage
2006-10-02 9:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/4] Cpusets hooked into containers Paul Menage
2006-10-02 9:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/4] Add generic multi-subsystem API to containers Paul Menage
2006-10-02 9:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Simple CPU accounting container subsystem Paul Menage
2006-10-04 1:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system Chandra Seetharaman
2006-10-04 2:34 ` Paul Menage
2006-10-04 4:43 ` Paul Jackson
2006-10-04 18:56 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2006-10-04 19:36 ` Martin Bligh [this message]
2006-10-04 21:37 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2006-10-04 21:42 ` Paul Menage
2006-10-04 21:40 ` Paul Menage
2006-10-04 21:49 ` Paul Menage
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-28 10:40 menage
2006-09-28 18:49 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-28 19:00 ` Paul Menage
2006-09-29 4:31 ` Paul Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45240D20.3080202@google.com \
--to=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
--cc=Simon.Derr@bull.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jlan@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rohitseth@google.com \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=winget@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox