Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

[Paul Menage]

On 9/20/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we should have one container mechanism instead of multiple. Maybe
> merge the two? The cpuset functionality is well established and working
> right.

The basic container abstraction provided by cpusets is very nice -
maybe rename it from "cpuset" to "container"? Since it already
provides access to memory nodes as well as cpus, and could be extended
to handle other resource types too (network, disk).

Paul
-
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/