Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system

[Chandra Seetharaman]

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 12:36 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:

I agree with you, Martin.

> >>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

Paul (Menage) is already work on this.

We will work out the rest.
> 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.
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/