>>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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
