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

[Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>]

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 9/10/07, Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2007, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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.

"cfs" looks good enough to identify the subsystem.

C.