Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups. | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:20:53 +0200 |
| |
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.
| |