Srivatsa wrote:
> 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).
Yeah.
One -could- take linear combinations, as Peter drew in his ascii art,
but would one -want- to do that?
I imagine some future time, when users of this wonder why the API is
more complicated than seems necessary, with two factors determining
task-groups where one seems sufficient, and the answer is "the other
factor, user-id's, is just there because we needed it as an interim
mechanism, and then had to keep it, to preserve ongoing compatibility.
That's not a very persuasive justification.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
