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