Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761946AbXIKPyh (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:54:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754837AbXIKPy3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:54:29 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:23212 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753706AbXIKPy2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:54:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:53:01 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Cedric Le Goater , Paul Menage , Dmitry Adamushko , Andrew Morton , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, Jan Engelhardt , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure Message-Id: <20070911085301.ca3a00e4.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20070911155119.GE16222@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070910171049.GA16048@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070910172334.GB19100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070910102259.dc45a481.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070910174649.GA16222@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830709101545s66fd338dob6932407db4e1002@mail.gmail.com> <46E641C1.8000808@fr.ibm.com> <20070911082243.9433c528.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070911155119.GE16222@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.2 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1090 Lines: 29 On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:21:19 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:22:43AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > That looks odd, like it's a filesystem. > > What does cfs really mean? > > cfs = completely fair scheduler :) > > In this thread, we are talking of hooking the cfs cpu scheduler with the > task-container framework in -mm tree, so that the scheduler can deal > with groups of tasks rather than just tasks, while handling fairness of > cpu allocation. > > I agree "cfs" control subsystem does look odd a bit here. "cpu" control > subsystem seems better. Thanks. I agree that using "cpu" is better. I.e., don't tie it to a particular scheduler name. It would just need to change the next time we have a new scheduler. ;) --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - 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/