Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750914AbWJDTgs (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:36:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750915AbWJDTgs (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:36:48 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:1973 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750912AbWJDTgr (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:36:47 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YvCy/8UOJzEWbwFi8RYVigAV8Aj9MG2GyWvYl4RdWGwOpkJUSMO86csNkWgrKxrJE sEV69Qm4ULS9tr0nrGfyQ== Message-ID: <45240D20.3080202@google.com> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:36:00 -0700 From: Martin Bligh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sekharan@us.ibm.com CC: Paul Menage , 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 References: <20061002095319.865614000@menage.corp.google.com> <1159925752.24266.22.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830610031934s41994158o59f1a2e58b1cb45e@mail.gmail.com> <1159988217.24266.60.camel@linuxchandra> In-Reply-To: <1159988217.24266.60.camel@linuxchandra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1056 Lines: 28 >>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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/