lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.
From
Date
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:31 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> You wouldn't have to do more than one hierarchy walks for that. What
> Tejun seems to want, is the ability to not have a particular controller
> at some point in the tree. But if they exist, they are always together.

Right, but the accounting is very much tied to the control structures, I
suppose we could change that, but my jet-leg addled brain isn't seeing
anything particularly nice atm.

But I don't really see the point though, this kind of interface would
only ever work for the non-controlling and controlling controller
combination (confused yet ;-), and I don't think we have many of those.

I would really rather see a simplification of the entire cgroup
interface space as opposed to making it more complex. And adding this
subtree 'feature' only makes it more complex.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-05 13:03    [W:0.189 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site